n 



't 




Class 
Book. 



VO \ J i ft A 



r r 



Copyright^ .. 



COPYRIGHT DEPOSIT. 



V 



THE HISTORIC 
EPISCOPATE 



By 
ROBERT ELLIS THOMPSON, M.A., S.T. D., LL.D. 

of THE PRESBYTERY of PHILADELPHIA 




PHILADELPHIA 

tEfce Wtstminmx pre** 

1910 



"3^70 



Copyright, 1910, by 

The Trustees of The Presbyterian Board of 
Publication and Sabbath School Work 



Published May, 1910 



<§;G!.A265282 






IN ACCORDANCE WITH ACADEMIC USAGE THIS 
BOOK IS DEDICATED TO THE PRESIDENT, 
FACULTY AND TRUSTEES OF MUHLENBERG 
COLLEGE IN GRATEFUL RECOGNITION OF 
HONORS CONFERRED 



PREFACE 

The subject of this book has engaged its author's 
attention at intervals for nearly half a century. 

The present time seems propitious for publishing it, 
in the hope of an irenic rather than a polemic effect. 
Our Lord seems to be pressing on the minds of his people 
the duty of reconciliation with each other as brethren, 
and to be bringing about a harmony of feeling and of 
action, which is beyond our hopes. He is beating down 
high pretensions and sectarian prejudices, which have 
stood in the way of Christian reunion. 

It is in the belief that the claims made for what is 
called "the Historic Episcopate" have been, as Dr. 
Liddon admits, a chief obstacle to Christian unity, that 
I have undertaken to present the results of a long study 
of its history, in the hope that this will promote, not 
dissension, but harmony. If in any place I have spoken 
in what seems a polemic tone, let this be set down to the 
stress of discussion, and not to any lack of charity or 
respect for what was for centuries the church of my 
fathers, as it still is that of most of my kindred. 

I wish to thank here Rev. Louis F. Benson, D.D., for 
the encouragement, advice and assistance he has given me 
in this work. Also to recognize with thanks my obliga- 
tions to the librarians of Union Theological Seminary, 
for their kind and prompt aid in my visits to their splen- 
did library, and especially to Mr. Harold Tryon, my 
former pupil and always friend, who is now an instructor 
in that Seminary. 

Philadelphia, 

May 1st, 1910. 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 

CHAPTER PAGE 

Introduction 1 

I. The New Testament Age 17 

II. The Presbyterl\n Fathers 50 

III. The Ignatian Epistles 75 

IV. From Senate to Monarch 101 

V. Gradatim 145 

VI. From Pastor to Prelate 165 

VII. The Episcopate of the Middle Ages 185 

VIII. Tudor Anglicanism 207 

IX. Stuart Anglicanism 233 

X. Modern Anglicanism 261 

XL Outlook 285 

Appendix 292 

Index 311 



Vll 



THE HISTORIC EPISCOPATE 



INTRODUCTION 

In the later history of the American Churches nothing 
is more gratifying than the decay of the polemic spirit. 
The men most honored are no longer those who administer 
the hardest knocks to other communions than their own. 
The literature in which the different sects used to pay their 
disrespects to each other is in small demand. The con- 
troversies of to-day are not between the different denom- 
inations of Christians, as they deal with questions on which 
there is a difference of opinion within the churches, and 
thus tend to weaken rather than to strengthen denomina- 
tional feeling. 

There is one exception to this, growing out of the claim 
put forward by a party within the Protestant Episcopal 
Church, but not by that Church itself. This party tells 
us that theirs alone of all the churches called Protestant 
possesses an authorized ministry and valid sacraments. 
Nor is this merely an academic thesis. It is proclaimed 
in sermons, propounded in leading articles, circulated in 
tracts, and pressed in social intercourse, as a reason why 
the members of other Protestant communions should 
abandon these for this favored Church; and every sug- 
gestion of a union of the Protestant churches is met with 
the demand that the pastors of these shall confess their 
lack of proper ordination, and shall submit to receive 
this at the hand of their bishops. 



2 The Historic Episcopate 

This teaching, as has been said, is that not of that 
church, but of a party within it, which has grown up within 
the last seventy years, and must be reckoned among the 
novelties which disturb the peace of a much respected 
communion. Down to the rise of the Oxford school in 
England, and the spread of its influence in America, the 
position of Protestant episcopacy in our country was far 
from that which has been given it by these new contro- 
versialists. 

At the first the whole of the English colonies in America 
were attached to the diocese of London, so that not only 
ordination but even confirmation was limited to those who 
could undertake an ocean voyage lasting several months, 
and exposing passengers to perils of storm, war and pesti- 
lence, such as no longer exist for those who cross the 
Atlantic. At the same time, in spite of the appointment 
of Episcopal commissaries with powers of visitation, 
there was no possibility of keeping the clergy of the 
Church of England in America under due discipline, and 
the lives of some were a scandal to their cloth. 

The hardships of the situation were not unf elt in England 
and three several attempts were made to transport the 
English episcopate to America. The first of these was 
set on foot by Archbishop Laud, but was thwarted by 
the outbreak of the civil war. The second was due to the 
zealous churchmanship of the Earl of Clarendon, but came 
to an end with his expulsion from the chancellorship and 
banishment from England in 1667. The third grew out 
of the revival of zeal for the Church in the reign of Queen 
Anne. The papers were about to pass the great seal, and 
a house for the bishop had been secured in Burlington, 
N. J., when the queen's death transferred the English 
monarchy to a family of Germans, who cared nothing 
for the matter. The accession, however, of the third 



Introduction 3 

king of the house of Hanover seemed to offer a favorable 
opportunity for the appointment of an American bishop. 
George III was proud of his position as a British sovereign, 
and loyal in his way to the Church of England. Arch- 
bishop Seeker and Bishop Porteous of Chester — the latter 
a native of Virginia — were friendly to the proposal. 

The difficulty in the way was the indifference of English 
statesmen to Church interests, and their reluctance to 
take any course for such an object which ran the risk of 
exciting extensive opposition either at home or in the 
colonies. And in both there was opposition enough. 
The British and Irish nonconformists resisted the pro- 
posal to extend the influence and power of English prelacy 
beyond the seas. The colonists, not excepting the Epis- 
copalians in Virginia, objected to the coming of a bishop 
who might bring with him the prelatic courts, with their 
jurisdiction over marriages, wills and other matters, 
which lasted in England until 1857, to say nothing of the 
peril of having Parliament enact a general tithe or tax 
upon all the colonists for the support of the bishop and 
his clergy. 

To propitiate this opposition, Dr. Thomas Bradley 
Chandler, of Burlington, published An Appeal to the 
Public in Behalf of the Church of England in America 
(New York, 1767), in which he set forth the hardships 
attending the dependence of the Episcopalians in the 
colonies on an English bishop, and assured his countrymen 
that nothing more was intended than the erection of an 
American diocese with jurisdiction over the clergy and 
people who voluntarily submitted to its bishop. The 
good faith of Dr. Chandler and his associates was not 
called in question; but it was pointed out that they could 
give no assurance that the British Parliament would not 
follow up this step by levying a general tithe and erecting 



4 The Historic Episcopate 

a bishop's court with powers similar to those exercised 
by English bishops. In fact, the proposal brought into 
light the perils to religious equality which attached to the 
connection with the mother country, and thus helped to 
bring on the war for independence. It led to annual con- 
ferences of the Puritan churches of New England with the 
Presbyterians of the middle colonies, and to correspon- 
dence with the English dissenters, with a view to watching 
the movements of the friends of an American bishopric. 

For these reasons the war wrought disaster to the 
Church of England in the colonies. Although Washing- 
ton and other laymen of that communion, and William 
White and others among its clergy, were on the patriotic 
side, }'et it lost heavily in membership through the emi- 
gration of the loyalists to other parts of the British Empire 
and the withdrawal of patriots to other communions. 
Dr. Chandler gave good reason for believing that it was 
the strongest Christian communion in America before 
the war; but it certainly was far outnumbered by several 
others after its close, and to this day ranks below four 
other Protestant churches in point of membership. For 
this reason, and because independence had removed the 
peril of an established church, the opposition to the trans- 
planting of Protestant episcopacy to America ceased. 
Opposition was disarmed, and the representative of our 
government at the Court of St. James took part in the 
negotiations to secure the consecration of bishops for a 
church which was now content to take its place among the 
Christian communions of America. 

Outside the diocese of Connecticut, the bishops and 
other clergy of the Protestant Episcopal Church assumed 
an attitude of great moderation in their presentation of 
the merits of episcopacy. In the preface to the Book of 
Common Prayer, as adopted by the General Convention 



Introduction 5 

of 1789, a reference is made to the attempts to revise the 
prayer book of the Church of England in 1689, and it is 
said : 

But this good work miscarried at that time; and the Civil 
Authority lias not since thought proper to revive it by any new 
commission. But when in the course of divine Providence 
these American states became independent with respect to 
civil government, their ecclesiastical independence was neces- 
sarily included; and the different religious denominations of 
Christians in these states were left at full and equal liberty to 
model and organize their respective churches, and forms of 
worship, and discipline, in such manner as they might judge 
most convenient for their future prosperity; consistently with 
the constitution and laws of their country. 

Very similar in spirit is the language used by President 
Washington, in reply to an address from the General 
Convention of that year. "On this occasion," he wrote, 
"it would ill become me to conceal the joy I have felt in 
perceiving the fraternal affection, which appears to in- 
crease every day among the friends of genuine religion. 
It affords edifying prospects indeed, to see Christians of 
different denominations dwell together in more charity, 
and conduct themselves with respect to each other, with 
a more Christianlike spirit than they ever have done in 
any former age, or in any other nation." 

Bishop William White, who on his title-pages describes 
himself as " Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church 
in the Diocese of Pennsylvania," and not (like his suc- 
cessors) "Bishop of Pennsylvania," was the most out- 
standing and the noblest figure in the newly organized 
Church. Seven years before his writing of the preface 
he had been moved by the miseries and decay of the Epis- 
copalian churches, under a war which seemed interminable, 
to write a pamphlet : The Case of the Episcopal Churches 
in the United States Considered (Philadelphia, 1782). He 
proposed that, without waiting for the action of English 



6 The Historic Episcopate 

bishops, there should be chosen a number of bishops or 
superintendents to take charge of the churches, and to 
ordain and confirm with episcopal authority. The 
proposal would have met the approval of Drs. Bancroft, 
Andrews, Bramhall, Cosin and Hooker, on that ground 
of necessity which they recognized as existing for the 
Reformed churches of the Continent. He puts the case 
for the episcopal form of government by saying that 
"the opinion that episcopacy was the most ancient and 
eligible, but without any idea of divine right in the case, 
this author believes to be the sentiments of the great body 
of Episcopalians in America, in which respect they have 
in their favor, unquestionably, the sense of the Church 
of England, and, as he believes, the opinions of her most 
distinguished prelates for piety, virtue and ability." 

Bishops Provoost and Madison, who shared with him 
the direction of their church in its opening years, were of 
the same mind. The former showed his recognition of 
other than episcopal orders by having Dr. William Linn, 
of the (Dutch) Reformed Church, take a prominent part 
in the funeral services of an American general in Trinity 
Church, in the presence of President Washington and of 
both houses of Congress. Bishop Madison proposed 
active negotiations with " Christians of other denomina- 
tions" for the restoration of Christian unity among the 
Protestants of America, in terms not unlike the Lambeth 
proposals of our own time. 

In Connecticut the churches and clergy were converts 
from the Puritan churches; and they justified Bishop 
Hobart's humorous saying, that " those who get episcopacy 
by infection have it worse than do those who inherited 
it." They were all Tories in the war for independence; 
and at its close a number of their clergy invited Dr. Samuel 
Seabury to proceed to England to obtain consecration as 



Introduction 7 

bishop. As he had been highly useful to the British 
commanders during the war, and was a pensioner of the 
British Government to his death, because of his serving as 
chaplain to one of its regiments, it might have been ex- 
pected that his application would have been received with 
favor. But the legal difficulties in the way of consecrating 
an Anglican bishop who should take no oath of supremacy 
and allegiance to the King of England were found in- 
superable in this case, and this champion and pensioner 
of King George had recourse to the nonjuring bishops in 
Scotland who rejected the House of Hanover and, until 
1790, refused to pray for its kings. From them he re- 
ceived consecration at Aberdeen in 1784, and returned to 
America without any recognition of his episcopacy from 
the Church of England. Bishop Provoost declined to 
admit the validity of this consecration, and Bishop White 
showed no zeal to bring about a union of Connecticut 
with the rest of the church. "This may oblige me," 
wrote Dr. Seabury, "to establish the Scotch succession 
from the reorganization of Charles II, to what is called 
the Revolution." 

In 1789, however, and in the absence of Bishop Provoost, 
Dr. Seabury was recognized and admitted to the General 
Convention, to which he brought the element of exclusive 
episcopacy. In one of his sermons Bishop Seabury thus 
states his view of the ministry of the church: "Since the 
Holy Apostles did, in obedience to Christ, and under the 
direction of the Holy Ghost, transmit to others the powers 
received from him, constituting bishops, presbyters and 
deacons, as three orders of ministers in his church; it is 
the duty of all Christians to submit to that government 
which they, the Apostles, have instituted, and not to 
run after the new-fangled scheme of parochial episcopacy, 
of which the Bible knows nothing, and of which the Chris- 



8 The Historic Episcopate 

tian Church knew nothing till a little more than two 
centuries ago." 

Even before the influences of the Oxford movement 
reached this country, this anti-Puritan churchmanship 
of Connecticut began to exercise an influence in some 
parts of the Protestant Episcopal Church. Bishop 
Hobart of New York (1811-1816) and Bishop Ravens- 
croft of North Carolina (1823-1831) were notable instances, 
and both confirmed the former's epigram as to the zeal 
of converts to episcopacy. But William White remained 
the type of " sound churchmanship " for the church at 
large, and to be a " prayer book churchman" was enough 
for even those who called themselves high churchmen. 
An appeal has been made to the Eleventh Canon of the 
Protestant Episcopal Church, adopted in 1792, as im- 
plying that the orders of episcopally ordained clergy alone 
are valid. But this canon was aimed not at the ministers 
of other Christian churches, to exclude them from an 
occasional exercise of their ministry, but against " persons 
not regularly ordained" who " assume the ministerial 
office and perform any of the duties thereof in this church." 
At the date of its enactment the churches of America 
were plagued with pretenders, who put themselves for- 
ward as ordained ministers of the gospel, and found too 
easy an acceptance in congregations destitute of pastors. 
This was the interpretation put upon the canon by Dr. 
John Croes, the first Bishop of New Jersey, and by Bishop 
Onderdonk of Pennsylvania, who said to Dr. Richard 
Newton that "this canon had not reference to ministers 
of other denominations." 

Other than episcopal orders were recognized in the 
missionary work of the church. In the mission at Sierra 
Leone Rev. Messrs. Rennig and Harting, and afterwards 
Rev. Messrs. Nylander, Butscher and Prape, were ac- 



Introduction g 

cepted as missionaries, although they had no orders but 
those of the Lutheran Church of Germany. For this 
there was a colonial precedent. When Rev. Evan Evans, 
rector of Christ Church in Philadelphia, visited England 
in 1707, Dr. Tiffany says, "his place was supplied by a 
Swedish clergyman, the Rev. Andrew Reedman; an inci- 
dent which, like many other instances of interchange and 
good offices, shows the kindly relations of the two 
churches." Yet Swedish episcopacy has not the hall- 
mark of an apostolical succession. 

Besides the presence of Dr. Linn in Trinity Church, 
already mentioned, there were other instances of the 
recognition of the ministry of other churches. In earlier 
times, indeed, the practice was so common that the House 
of Bishops in 1820 sent a statement to the House of 
Deputies, saying: "The bishops have found by experience 
that such ministers, in many instances, preaching in our 
churches and to our congregations, avail themselves of 
such opportunity to inveigh against the principles of our 
communion." Through the growth of the Anglo-Catholic 
party it could not occur now without creating an extensive 
disturbance. The whole trend of ecclesiastical legisla- 
tion within this church has been in the direction of in- 
creasing exclusiveness, since the year 1840. 1 

I presume it is true of our Protestant churches gener- 
ally, as it is of our Presbyterian Church, that these vaga- 
ries of opinion have been regarded with equanimity. 
Wholly satisfied as to the apostolicity of its orders, as- 
sured of the divine presence in its worship and the lives 

1 For the facts relating to the earlier history of the Protestant Episcopal 
Church I am indebted to A History of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the 
United States of America, by Charles C. Tiffany, D.D., Archdeacon of New York 
(New York, 1895); The Protestant Episcopacy of the Revolutionary Patriots Lost 
and Restored, by Mason Gallagher (Philadelphia, 1883); and a communication 
to The Church Witness and Advocate (Boston) in an issue for September, 1868. 
See also The Anglican Episcopate and the American Colonies, by Arthur Lyon 
Cross (London, 1902). 



io The Historic Episcopate 

of its people, conscious of special access to God in the 
sacraments of the Master's appointment, and rejoicing 
in the harvest it has gathered on the mission field both at 
home and abroad, it has felt no anxiety to vindicate its 
position against the assumptions of either the Church of 
Rome or the Church of England. It has kept a notable 
silence in the presence of depreciatory criticism from the 
champions of both. 

Our only regret is in observing one of the great sister- 
hood of the Reformed churches abandon its place in that 
illustrious company and seek fellowship with the Latin 
and Greek churches rather than with its sisters nearer 
home, and once far nearer to its heart. We have looked 
for nothing else than the rebuff from both those alien 
communions, which has rewarded those efforts by the 
repudiation of its claim to stand apart from other Prot- 
estant churches either in the validity of its orders or the 
"catholicity" of its doctrines. We w r atch with slight 
interest the continuous and voluminous attempts to 
vindicate "Anglican orders/' but are struck with the 
fact that so often the authors of these defences end by 
submission to the papal authority (Newman, Allies, 
Rivington, etc.), and are led to wonder whether any of 
them indicate anything but a tormenting uncertainty 
about the matter in hand. 

The proposals for Christian reunion emanating from 
the American House of Bishops in 1886 made the question 
one of living interest to the Presbyterian Church, and led 
our General Assembly of 1887 to appoint a Committee 
on Church Unity, to confer with the commission appointed 
by the General Convention of the Protestant Episcopal 
Church the year before. After some preliminary cor- 
respondence, the committee conveyed to the commission 
the hearty acceptance by our church of the three first 



Introduction 1 1 

articles proposed as the basis of a possible reunion, that 
is, the Scriptures as the revealed word of God, the Nicene 
Creed, and the two sacraments. As to the fourth — "the 
historic episcopate, locally adapted in the methods of its 
administration to the varying needs of the nations and 
peoples called of God into the unity of his church" — the 
committee wrote: 

The Presbyterian Church holds, and always has held firmly, 
to what we believe to be the genuinely historic episcopate as 
this is set forth in the New Testament and in the practice of 
the early Church, so far as it did not swerve from apostolic 
models and directions. It finds the presbyter-bishop in all ages 
of the Church, in unbroken succession until the present day. At 
the same time we are not disposed to constrain others to adopt 
our interpretation in this matter. We shall feel no difficulty in 
uniting with those who interpret the bishops of the New Testa- 
ment and of the primitive Church differently from ourselves, pro- 
vided our own liberty of interpretation is not infringed. We 
can unite with those who think bishops to be a superior order of 
the clergy, provided we are not asked to abandon our own con- 
scientious conviction that bishops as instituted by the Apostles 
are not of superior rank, but that all who are ordained to the 
ministry by the laying on of hands of the presbytery, and are 
intrusted with the care and oversight of souls, are bishops. 

Acting under the instructions of the General Assembly, 
the committee put forward the statement that " mutual 
recognition and reciprocity between the different bodies 
who profess the true religion is the first and essential step 
toward practical church unity." They afterwards sug- 
gested as an expression of this the interchange of pulpits 
by the clergy of the two churches. On this point the 
commission declared its incompetency to act; and as the 
General Convention of 1896 took no notice of the sug- 
gestion, the negotiations were suspended. The reason 
for this was stated in a report adopted by the General 
Assembly of 1896: 

The Presbyterian Church cannot with self-respect, and a 
proper regard for the honor of their divine Lord, who has called 
them into the communion of his visible Church, negotiate on the 



12 The Historic Episcopate 

subject of Church unity with another Christian body except on 
terms of parity, and unleee they are explicitly acknowledged to 
be a church of Christ, and topo oocm a divinely authorised minis- 
try, which he has both summoned to his service by the direct call 

of his Holy Spirit, and has sanctioned by the gifts and graces 
bestowed upon them, and by his abundant blessing upon their 
labors. In presenting this to our Episcopal brethren as a 
necessary preliminary to all negotiations for church unity, we 
ask nothing more than they should unhesitatingly grant. . . 
With all her conscious weaknesses and imperfections, 
the Presbyterian Church, in no spirit of boasting or self-exalta- 
tion, but with humble and grateful loyalty to her divine Head, 
must insist that she is entitled to the name and the prerogatives 
of a true church of Christ, and that her ministry and ordinances 
are entitled to be regarded as genuine and valid. 1 

The essential reasonableness of this action has been 
admitted by Bishop Doane of Albany, who says: "To 
approach the great Protestant churches of the world with 
the statement that their ministries are unlawful, is to 
propose, not reunion, but absorption; not consideration 
but contempt. If one may quote, not irreverently, the 
vulgar saying of the lamb and the lion lying down to- 
gether with the lamb inside, it is just this and nothing 
more, and leaves us in an attitude of antagonism and 
isolation, which is perfectly hopeless and futile." 2 

Bishop Doane quotes with approval a suggestion made 
by Dr. Palmer, Bishop of Bombay, that the whole ques- 
tion of the " origin of episcopacy and of holy orders" 
should be reopened for discussion in an impartial spirit. 
"What I desire to emphasize," says Bishop Palmer, 
"is that while the views of learned men are divided so 
widely on the history of the origin of episcopacy,, it is 
impossible to find language about it which all those whose 
reunion we desire to see could join heartily in using. Now 

1 Church Unity: The Progress and Suspension of the Negotiations Between the 
Protestant Episcopal and Presbyterian Churches (Philadelphia, Presbyterian 
Board of Publication, 1899). See also Church Reunion Discussed on the Basis 
uf the Lambeth Propositions of 1888. Reprinted from The Church Review for 
April and October, 1890 (New York, 1890). 

*The Churchman (New York, November 21, 1909). 



Introduction 13 

it lies with men who can be content to retract their own 
past asseverations, if they turn out untenable. — who are 
willing to approach the question in the spirit of scientific 
history, — who can die to themselves, their opinions, and 
(if they are so unhappy as to belong to one; their par 
and give themselves up to the truth — it lies with such 
men. I say, to provide a basis for reunion by studying 
over again the whole question of the origins of episcop^ 
with its bearing on the validity of ministry and sacrame: 
and by presenting to the church a dispassionate, scientific, 
scholarly statement of the whole subje 

It is just in this faith that the present situation of the 
Christian Church calls upon us to reexamine the ques- 
tion in the new light which documentary discoveries and 
scholarly investigation have thrown upon it, that this 
book has been written. Its author does not claim that 
he walks on the summit heights of utter impartiality, 
which Dr. Palmer describes. He writes with the con- 
sciousness that he belongs to and in some degree speaks 
for a great Protestant communion, which has a very vital 
interest in this subject. But he writes also in the hope 
that he will contribute something to the coming of the 
day of Christian reunion, which will be effected on the 
bas 3 ripture. history and Christian insight into the 

es s en tial things of the Church- "The mquiries," says 
Dr. William Sanday. u which have of late been made in the 
early history of the Christian ministry seem to me to 
result in an eirenicon between the churches. The dove 
returned with an olive branch in her mouth." 1 

Before coming to the points of difference. I shall try to 
state those on which we are agreed, as to the history of the 
matter. These I believe to be: 

1 . That our Lord Jesus Christ founded a visible church, 



14 The Historic Episcopate 

gave it sacraments as a manifestation of its existence and 
unity, as well as means of grace to its members; and that 
he committed the government of it to his Apostles, who 
were the chosen witnesses of his resurrection. 

2. That the Apostles, in gathering local churches in the 
name of their Master, committed the care of these to two 
classes of officers, namely, presbyters or bishops, and 
deacons; and that the former had charge of the spiritual 
interests of those churches (preaching the word, teaching, 
discipline and the care of souls), and the latter of the 
temporal. 

3. That in the churches thus organized there was a 
plurality of both classes of officers, and the care of a local 
church was not committed permanently to any single 
person resident with it. 

4. That from about the middle of the second century 
of the Christian era the local churches generally are found 
under the direction and care of a single person, called a 
bishop, with the presbyters (no longer called bishops) 
and the deacons both in subordination to him. 

The questions in dispute are as to when, through whom, 
and why this change took place, and whether it was in 
harmony with the teaching of our Lord and his Apostles 
as to the proper state of a Christian church. 

Four theories have been put forward in modern times 
as to the origin of this monarchic episcopate by those who 
regard it as the normal order of the Christian churches. 

1. Richard Rothe, a German Lutheran theologian, in 
his remarkable book, The Beginnings of the Christian 
Church and its Constitution (Die Anfdnge der Christlichen 
Kirche und ihrer Verfassung, Wittenberg, 1837), starts 
from a statement made by Eusebius (A. D. 325) that the 
surviving Apostles and kinsmen of our Lord met in synod 
after the destruction of Jerusalem (A. D. 70). Dr. Rothe 



Introduction 1 5 

supposes that, in view of the loss of the visible center of 
unity, they agreed to set up the monarchic episcopate as 
a link of communication between the churches, and thus 
unite them into an undivided catholic church. None of 
the Fathers refer to such a decision. 

2. Bishop Lightfoot substitutes for an apostolic synod 
the activity of the Apostle John, who lived on into the 
reign of Trajan (A. D. 98-117), and who made Ephesus 
the center of his later labors. Ireneus of Lyons (A. D. 
180-189) speaks of the Apostles having made Polycarp 
bishop of Smyrna; and Tertullian (A. D. 200) asserts that 
this was done by John, and that "the order of bishops, 
if it be traced to its source, will be found to stand in John." 
Clement of Alexandria (A. D. 190-215) describes John 
as visiting the churches in Asia, and appointing them 
bishops. 

3. Dr. George Salmon thinks it possible that Paul 
anticipated John in this work in Asia, and that the Dio- 
trephes of the Third Epistle of John was a Pauline bishop, 
who resented the intrusion of John's messengers into his 
jurisdiction, as an encroachment on his authority. With 
this Dr. Charles Gore substantially agrees. 

4. Dean Stanley and some others, who do not insist on 
tracing episcopacy back to the apostolic age, regard its 
evolution as a providential direction of the Church's de- 
velopment, and as possessing the authority which grows 
out of its inherent fitness to the needs of the Christian 
Church. Dr. Gore, recognizing the imperfection of the 
evidence for monarchic episcopacy in the apostolic age, 
seems to fall back upon this conception of an evolution 
under providential direction. It was anticipated by Dr. 
Newman in his Essay on Development (1895). "When 
the church was thrown upon her own resources" by the 
death of the Apostles, he says, "first local disturbances 



1 6 The Historic Episcopate 

gave exercise to bishops, and next ecumenical disturbances 
gave exercise to popes." 

I shall consider first the presumptions we may draw 
from the Gospels and the Epistles, as to the likelihood 
that the Apostles gave their sanction to the monarchic 
episcopate. 



CHAPTER I 

The New Testament Age 

On two notable occasions our Lord discussed the desire 
for preeminence in the kingdom he [was about to establish. 
The first was when the question arose spontaneously in 
the minds of the Apostles; and the desire of preeminence 
was marked by him as coming of and tending to evil. 
He bade them see in the simplicity and contentment of 
an unspoiled child the model of conduct for men. (Mat- 
thew xviii: 1-5; Mark ix: 33-41; Luke ix: 46-50.) The 
second was when the mother of James and John asked for 
the place of honor for her two sons; no doubt on the ground 
of their near kinship to our Lord. The proposal angers 
the other Apostles, each of whom thinks he has as good a 
claim as the sons of Zebedee, if not better. Our Lord 
again warns them against this spirit as alien to his king- 
dom, pointing them this time to the rulers of the Gentiles 
as the type of what they are to avoid. (Matthew xx : 20- 
28; Mark x: 35-45; Luke xxii:25.) The scene of the 
feet-washing at the last supper (John xiii: 1-17) may be 
taken as a third lesson in the same sense, which is that in 
the kingdom he came to establish honor comes by service, 
and he stands highest who serves the most widely and the 
most humbly. For at the head of that kingdom is One 
who serves the most widely and the most humbly of all. 

It is true that in all these cases our Lord is rebuking the 
thoughts and intents of the heart, rather than any ex- 
ternal thing or act. True that all his commandments 
2 17 



1 8 The Historic Episcopate 

must be kept by the heart. But the new wine of the king- 
dom calls for new bottles, fitted to its nature. The king- 
dom will ultimate itself in a social order, in which the pre- 
eminence of one over another will have no recognition or 
place. 

The Apostle Paul enunciates the same principles largely 
and diffusely in his sermon to the elder-bishops of Ephesus 
(Actsxx: 17-35), in his Epistles to the Romans (xii: 6-10, 
16; xv : 1-7), Corinthians (1 Corinthians ix: 12-23; 2 
Corinthians x: 1-16), Ephesians (iv: 11-13), Philippians 
(ii: 3—16), and to Timothy (iii: 1-13). He applies the 
principles of meekness, humility and desire to serve 
rather than to rule, to the practical needs of the churches 
he founded. And he, like his Master, treats the conver- 
sion of sinners and the edification of saints as the end for 
which the Church and the apostolate itself existed. He 
knows no higher work for himself or for anyone. 

The Apostle Peter makes a more direct application of 
our Lord's teaching about preeminence, to the order of the 
churches : 

The elders therefore among you I exhort, who am a fellow-elder, 
and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, who am also a partaker 
of the glory that shall be revealed: Tend the flock of God which 
is among you, exercising the oversight [or episcopate], not of 
constraint, but willingly, according to the will of God; nor yet 
for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; neither as lording it over 
the charge allotted to you, but making yourselves an ensample to 
the flock. And when the chief Shepherd shall be manifested, ye 
shall receive the crown of glory that fadeth not. (I Peter v: 
1-4.) 

The perils the Apostle sees before the pastors of the 
churches are those of changing the sweet reasonableness 
of Christ into a yoke of constraint; of the desire for gain 
rather than service as the end of their labor; and of the 
desire for a distinction within the Church which corre- 
sponded to that possessed by rulers in the world. And it 



The New Testament Age 19 

is notable that the Apostle places the eldership in such 
close proximity with the apostleship: he is an elder like 
themselves, although the chosen witness of the sufferings 
and the glory of Christ. 

The Apostle John also begins his third Epistle by de- 
scribing himself as an elder: "The elder unto Gaius the 
beloved, whom I love in truth." After praising Gaius 
for his hospitality to the messengers the Apostle had sent, 
he proceeds: 

I wrote somewhat unto the church : but Diotrephes, who loveth 
to have the preeminence among them, receiveth us not. There- 
fore, if I come, I will bring to remembrance his works which he 
doeth, prating against us with wicked words: and not content 
therewith, neither doth he himself receive the brethren, and 
them that would he forbiddeth, and casteth them out of the 
church. 

That in the acts of this seeker of preeminence, who 
excommunicated all who held with the Apostle, we have 
something like the beginnings of an episcopacy, we need 
not argue, as Dr. Salmon has recognized it for us. "It 
is remarkable," he says, "that John appears to have found 
the form of government by a single man already in exist- 
ence; for Diotrephes singly is spoken of as excommuni- 
cating those who disobeyed his prohibitions. Bishop 
Lightfoot is disposed to attribute a principal share in the 
establishment of episcopacy to the action of John in Asia 
Minor. But if the view taken here is right, John did not 
bring in that form of government, but found it there; 
whether it was that Paul had originally so constituted 
the churches; or that, in the natural growth of things, 
the method of government by a single man, which in 
political matters was the rule of the Roman Empire, 
proved to be also the most congenial to the people in 
ecclesiastical matters. It is impossible for us to say 
whether the rejection of John's legates was actuated solely 



20 The Historic Episcopate 

by jealousy of foreign intrusion, or whether there may not 
have been also doctrinal differences. Diotrephes may 
have been tainted by that Docetic heresy against which 
the Apostle so earnestly struggled." 1 

In this interesting statement two things are overlooked. 
The first is that the head and front of Diotrephes' offend- 
ing is his seeking a preeminence, which exalted him into a 
monarchic position in the church; and that this calls 
down upon him the censure of that Apostle whom Bishop 
Lightfoot supposes to have been the authorizer of epis- 
copal preeminence. The second is that the Apostle says 
not a word that hints that Diotrephes is doctrinally 
tainted, and charity forbids us to charge that upon even 
a bishop without proof. "It seems very clear," says Mr. 
Purchas, an Anglican clergyman in New Zealand, "that 
if St. John was the author of these short Epistles, he must 
have opposed or discouraged the beginnings of the episco- 
pate, and as a quiet protest, called himself 'the presbyter/ " 

Besides these statements of principle from our Lord 
and his Apostles, the New Testament tells us of the actual 
practice of the latter in the selection, installation and 
classification of the officials of the ecclesias 2 they gathered. 

First, of course, comes the church in Jerusalem, which 
enjoyed the presence and the direction of the Apostles 
for years after Pentecost, until divine Providence led 
the way to their labors among the peoples represented 
at the first great outpouring of the Holy Spirit (Acts 
ii: 9-11). Even before that event, the disciples, at the 
suggestion of Peter, had proceeded to fill the place left 

1 Introduction to the New Testament, p. 273. Bishop Gore follows Dr. Salmon 
in this suggestion as to Diotrephes in his work The Church and the Ministry, 
saying: " We shall be inclined to see in Diotrephes, with his ambitions self- 
exaltation, and his power ' to cast out of the church ' brethren who had come to 
him from St. JohD, one of these local bishops, who was misusing his power." 

2 I follow Dr. Hort in the use of the original Greek term, in order to avoid 
the ambiguities which attach to "assembly" and "church" in modern usage. 
See his notable book, The Christian Ecclesia (London, 1897). 



The New Testament Age 21 

vacant by the apostasy of Iscariot, by selecting a twelfth 
Apostle. They put forward two disciples whom they 
judged fit for the place, and, as the Spirit was not yet 
given them for a decision through prophecy, they called 
upon God to make the decision through their casting lots. 
Matthias, on whom the lot fell, "was numbered with the 
Apostles," but received no ordination from the Eleven. 
God's choice of him was found sufficient. 

After the gathering of the first Christian ecclesia at 
Pentecost, we hear for a time of no officials except the 
Apostles themselves, whose proper vocation made it 
impossible that they should fill that place permanently. 
The analogy of the Jewish synagogue, and the subsequent 
history of this and other ecclesias, suggest that elders were 
set forward as the responsible leaders of the ecclesia. But 
it is not until the eve of the persecution by which were 
scattered so many of the church, that the elders of the 
ecclesia emerge into notice, as the recipients of the money 
sent from Antioch for the relief of the poor saints in Jeru- 
salem. Archbishop Whately suggests that those elders 
of the synagogue who had accepted the gospel became 
elders of the church without any other election or ordina- 
tion. This harmonizes with the general desire at this 
time to maintain the continuity of the two organizations. 

In this interval the daily care of the poor became a 
tax upon the time of the Apostles, and the Jews of the 
Dispersion resident in the city complained that their 
widows were overlooked. So the Apostles called upon the 
ecclesia to choose men for this service, whom they would 
put in charge of it. The whole ecclesia made the choice 
of seven men, and presented them to the Apostles, who 
prayed and laid hands upon them. Nothing is said of 
prophets aiding in the selection; but this does not prove 
that it was not done, as in later cases. Nor is any name 






22 The Historic Episcopate 

given to the office of the seven. The title of deacon never 
occurs in the Book of the Acts. But as the work over 
which they were placed was called a diakonia before they 
were chosen to it, and as the description of it corresponds 
to that of the deacons of the churches in a later time, 
they have been called "the seven deacons"; and quite 
rightly. 

The next occurrence which casts light on the subject 
was at Antioch. Jn that great city of northern Syria, 
once the capital of western Asia, and noted equally for its 
wealth and its viciousness, a church of Hebrew Christians 
had been gathered by brethren, who went down from 
Jerusalem. Then believers from Cyprus and Gyrene, 
coming to Antioch possibly on business, spoke of the Way 
to Gentile Greeks, possibly their business acquaintance. 
"The hand of the Lord was with them," and their faith- 
fulness resulted in gathering many to Christ. This 
opened up the whole question of missionary work among 
the Gentiles, and the ecclesia in Jerusalem sent down 
Barnabas to learn and report upon the facts. He sum- 
moned Saul from Tarsus to help in the work, and they 
labored together for a whole year in a mixed ecclesia of 
Jews and Greeks. On this ecclesia the duty of mission 
work among the Gentiles must have pressed heavily. 
They appear to have held "a solemn meeting expressly 
with reference to a project for carrying the gospel to the 
heathen" (Hort), and received the answer to their prayers 
from the Holy Spirit, who, through prophets in the ec- 
clesia, said, "Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work 
whereunto I have called them." Then with fasting and 
prayer, hands were laid upon these two, either by the 
prophets, or by the whole ecclesia (Hort), and they went 
forth. Neither of the two, so far as we know, had re- 
ceived "the grace of orders" from the Twelve. Paul's 



The New Testament Age 23 

language to the churches of Galatia shows that he could 
not have accepted any such ordination from the Twelve 
without giving up his claim to stand on the same ground 
with them. This special ordination, commanded by the 
Holy Spirit, is effected either by the ecclesia of Antioch, 
or by Symeon, Lucius and Manaen — prophets indeed, but 
not Apostles in any sense (Acts xiii: 1-3). 

On Paul's first missionary voyage he and Barnabas 
seem to have been absorbed in evangelistic work on their 
way out, from Perga through Pisidian Antioch to Derbe. 
It was on their return over the same route that they took 
steps to establish responsible leaders in each of the ec- 
clesias they had gathered. So " having appointed for 
them elders in every ecclesia, and having prayed for them 
with fastings, they commended them to the Lord, on 
whom they had believed" (Acts xiv: 23). 

The second missionary journey was clouded at its out- 
set by the disagreement of Paul and Barnabas as to taking 
John Mark with them, and they parted company. Paul 
went on to the churches in which he had appointed elders. 
In that of Lystra a young man had risen to prominence 
as a fit implement for a great service. Prophecy seems 
to have designated him as a proper companion for the 
Apostle himself, and to this he was set apart by laying on 
hands, not by the whole ecclesia of Lystra, but by its 
body of elders (or presbytery) . Paul specified the presby- 
tery as acting, in his first Epistle to Timothy, whose 
purpose is to teach him his relations to "the ecclesia of 
God"; but speaks of the imposition of his own hands in 
the second, which is more private and personal (Hort). 
In both he mentions a "gift" (charisma), bestowed on 
Timothy at that time. Some regard this as a supernatural 
endowment of some sort, like the "gift of tongues" or 
the "gift of healing." Dr. Hort thinks it means rather a 



24 The Historic Episcopate 

personal endowment, fitting a man for service, like the 
"pounds" and the " talents" of our Lord's parables. 

Between the first and the second of Paul's missionary 
journeys came the council at Jerusalem, and in Luke's 
narrative of this we see the outstanding position and re- 
sponsibilities of the presbyters of that ecclesia. Although 
requested by the ecclesia at Antioch to go up to Jeru- 
salem "unto the Apostles and presbyters," to vindicate his 
methods of missionary work against the fault-finding of the 
Judaizing party, he went with reluctance, and only after 
being directed by a vision. He and his companions were 
received in Jerusalem "by the ecclesia, and the Apostles, 
and the presbyters." In the council itself "the Apostles 
and the presbyters" are said to take part; but the narra- 
tive shows that it was held in the presence of "the whole 
ecclesia," which also acquiesced in the decision reached. 
If that ecclesia had at its head an official who was some- 
thing else than an Apostle or a presbyter, Luke does not 
seem to have known it. 

We are asked, however, to observe the part taken in the 
council by James the Lord's brother, who is said to have 
been neither of the Apostles of that name. This last 
assertion is based on the statement of the fourth Gospel 
that our Lord's brethren "did not believe on him" (John 
vii: 5) up to the close of his Galilsean ministry, while 
the selection of the Apostles occurred nearly a year earlier, 
and of course included James the son of Alphaeus. After 
the resurrection they and his mother are found in the 
company which awaited the outpouring of the Holy Spirit 
(Acts i: 14). The question is a difficult one. Clement 
of Alexandria, Jerome, Augustine and Chrysostom are 
of the opinion that the James of the council, the "James 
the Lord's brother" of Galatians i : 19, was James the 
son of Alphaeus, one of the Twelve. This implies that 



The New Testament Age 25 

Paul uses the word " brother" either as synonymous with 
"cousin," according to the usage borrowed by the Sep- 
tuagint translators from the Hebrew, or in a vague sense 
of preeminence of likeness to our Lord — more probably 
the former. The statement of the fourth Gospel cannot 
be pressed to exclude any one of our Lord's "brothers"; 
since such expressions are often used in the Scriptures to 
cover a class generally rather than numerically. And 
Paul's expression to the Galatians means that James was 
one of the twelve Apostles. The admission of his epistle 
into the canon grew out of the conviction of the Church 
that it was one of the apostolic epistles. Luther's opin- 
ion that this James was not the Apostle he alleged in 
justification of his rejection of its authority. 

The relation of James to the church in Jerusalem is 
alleged by many episcopalian writers as the case "of a 
church being presided over by a single resident ruler, .... 
whose attitude towards the local church, his renunciation 
of missionary work, and his remaining with the holy city, 
point him out as the first true and proper bishop." 1 

If James was an Apostle, as the great fathers held, and 
as Paul twice fairly asserts, his connection with the church 
in Jerusalem proves nothing for episcopacy. No one 
disputes that the government of the churches was com- 
mitted to the Apostles, and that it was within their power 
to assign any of their number for permanent exercise of 
his office to the mother church in Jerusalem. In that 
capacity James may have stood at the head of the ec- 
clesia in the holy city, without more being implied for the 
permanent government of the churches than was involved 
in the appointment of Apostles at any rate. 

The proofs of his special connection with that ecclesia 
from the New Testament are neither numerous nor cogent. 

1 The Infallibility of the Church, by Dr. George Salmon (London), 1888, p. 350. 



26 The Historic Episcopate 

Not one of them is specially related to the affairs of the 
ecclesia, or concerns its government. The first is that 
when Peter was delivered from the prison into which 
Herod had cast him, he told the company at the house of 
Mary of Gethsemane, "Tell these things unto James, and 
to the brethren. ' ' For which of twenty possible reasons the 
message went to James, we are not told, nor yet why "the 
bishop " of the ecclesia was absent when so "many were 
gathered together and praying" for Peter's deliverance. 

Three years after Paul's conversion he "went up to 
Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and tarried with him fifteen 
days. But other of the Apostles saw I none, but only 
James the Lord's brother. . . .Then after the space of four- 
teen years I went up again to Jerusalem .... And when 
they perceived the grace that was given unto me, James 
and Cephas and John, they who were reputed to be pillars" 
of the ecclesia, "gave to me and Barnabas the right hands 
of fellowship, that we should go unto the Gentiles, and they 
unto the circumcision." Here twice James is mentioned 
among the Apostles, and even the "pillar Apostles," and 
included in the number of those who had a mission to the 
Hebrew people, on which he, no less than Peter and John, 
was to "go." Yet Dr. Salmon, on the authority of Ebion- 
ite documents, thinks he stood apart from the others in 
a "renunciation of missionary work." And the things 
about which Paul satisfied James and the other two are 
not the affairs of the church in Jerusalem, but the broad 
field of apostolic labor. 

The council at Jerusalem was occupied with questions 
of equal breadth, and was not a meeting of a single ec- 
clesia, or about the affairs of that ecclesia. The inference, 
from James being the last speaker, that he presided in the 
council, is hasty; nor would his presidency have been ap- 
propriate in a "Bishop of Jerusalem." The significance 



The New Testament Age 27 

of his action is due to the fact that he stood for the desire 
and purpose to emphasize the intimacy of the relations 
between the law and the gospel, and to avoid stress on 
their differences. When he agreed to a settlement which 
would be acceptable to Paul and Barnabas, the basis for 
peace was reached. " Guardian of the honor of Israel as 
he was in the ecclesia, he throws his voice on the side of 
liberty" (Hort), and carries with him even " those of the 
sect of the Pharisees" who had wanted to insist on the 
circumcision of Gentile converts. 

Paul's third missionary journey brings us to the memor- 
able scene at Miletus, with the elders of the ecclesia in 
Ephesus, whom he had summoned to meet him. He 
had stayed longer at Ephesus than at any other field of 
apostolic labor, Corinth not excepted. In that great 
center of idolatrous influence he had gathered the most 
important of the Gentile churches, and that which evoked 
from him the most profound of his epistles. Yet Luke 
has said nothing of the appointment of elders for that 
church, and we learn of it only when Paul sends for them. 
His wonderful address to them, Meyer calls "a mirror 
of the pastoral office"; and it abounds in that noble ego- 
tism which does not offend us in those who know that 
what is great or good in them is of God, and not of self. 
The passage which concerns us here runs: "Take heed to 
yourselves, and to all the flock [poimanion] in which the 
Holy Spirit has* placed you overseers [episkopous], to 
shepherd [poimainein] the ecclesia of God [or, of the Lord], 
which he hath purchased with his own blood." 

The term rendered "overseers" is that used in later 
times as the title of an office; that of bishop, is here em- 
ployed as descriptive of a function. It is the pastoral 
function, "the cure of souls," which the Holy Spirit has 
committed to these elders, who are to shepherd the 



28 The Historic Episcopate 

whole flock. It has been given to them with the same 
solemnity as marked Paul's own appointment to mis- 
sionary labor at Antioch. Through the prophets the 
spirit has called upon the Apostle and the ecclesia to 
" separate these men" to this office. 

We know that Ephesus afterwards was for a time the 
residence of Timothy as an evangelist; and that John 
spent his last years there, toward the close of the century. 
But we have no record that either Timothy or John saw 
any reason to set aside the church order which the Holy 
Spirit had established there, or to commit the oversight 
to any single person, instead of the presbytery set up by 
him at the first. Writers at the close of the second cen- 
tury — Ireneus, Tertullian, and by implication Clement of 
Alexandria — tell us that John appointed a single person 
with the title of bishop to the pastoral charge of that 
church, thus setting aside the arrangement which Paul 
regarded as having the sanction of the Holy Spirit. But 
none of them can tell us his name. For that we have to 
go to spurious writings of a later time, and even these 
do not agree. Pseudo-Hippolytus and Pseudo-Dorotheus 
give us the names Phygellus and Caius; the constitutions 
and canons of the Holy Apostles say it was another John 
than the Apostle. 

The Pauline Epistles present the matter in the same 
light as does the Book of the Acts. They are generally 
addressed to the churches Paul gathered and furnished with 
elders for their guidance. But they much more concern 
the acts of the ecclesias themselves than the duties of any 
officials. They show them to have been intensively 
active societies, busy with the personal needs of their 
individual members, with the discipline of the unworthy, 
and with the propagation of the gospel by example and 
word within the cities in which they sojourn. The elders 



The New Testament Age 29 

and deacons have no standing apart from the ecclesia. 
They are the organs of its life in their own sphere of action ; 
but that life is far too varied and abundant to be bounded 
by their activity. 

In three notable passages — 1 Corinthians xii : 27-30 ; 
Romans xii: 4-13; Ephesians iv: 3-12 — the Apostle speaks 
of the manifold functions with which the Spirit has en- 
dowed the members of the ecclesia for its upbuilding 
in numbers, wisdom and grace, but without professing 
to exhaust the subject. In view of the picture of the 
ecclesia they offer, sociologists must classify it as the 
highest form of human society known to history, as it 
was one of the greatest complexity of organization and 
function — a body in which every member had his gift 
and his use for it. Paul starts, of course, from Jesus 
Christ, who to the ecclesia was not a theory, or a doctrine, 
or a memory, but the living head, ruling its activities, 
"from whom the whole body, jointed and knit together 
through every juncture of service, according to the 
measure of the energy of each several part, maketh in- 
crease of the body to upbuilding itself in love." Among 
these manifold activities those of rule and government, 
and the preaching of the word, hold their proper place, 
but not the whole field of service. And their object is 
"the perfecting of the saints unto the work of ministering, 
unto the building up of the body of Christ.' ' 

Of his earlier epistles, only that to the ecclesia in Philippi 
makes any distinct reference to the officers who 
guide it. He sends greeting "to all the saints, with the 
episkopois and diakonois." Are these terms titles of 
office or descriptions of function? Our translators think 
them titles of office, and render them "bishops and 
deacons." Dr. Hort thinks them descriptive, and would 
translate "with them that have oversight, and them that 



30 The Historic Episcopate 

do service." Poly carp, writing to the same ecclesia in 
the next century, speaks of its officers as "presbyters 
and deacons ,, ; and Dr. Hort thinks these were the actual 
titles in Paul's time. This shows that the church leader- 
ship and authority set up in the first days of that church 
had remained unaltered after the death of all the Apostles. 

The Pastoral Epistles to Timothy and Titus belong to 
the last years of Paul's life. The first to Timothy was 
written that he might "know how men ought to behave 
in the house of God, which is an ecclesia of God, a pillar 
and a prop of the truth." It therefore deals more fully 
than does any other with the ecclesiastical problems of 
that and of all times. He quotes with approval the say- 
ing that "if a man reaches after oversight, he desires a 
good work," and proceeds to describe the graces and gifts 
which are required in him who exercises pastoral oversight 
in an ecclesia. He must be a teacher, hospitable, sober, 
prudent, and above all else a good ruler of his own house. 
Not a word suggests either a monopoly of any function, 
or a necessity for such itineracy as fell to the Apostles and 
the evangelists. Then comes a statement of what is 
required in deacons, male and female, ending with the 
statement that those who have rendered this service 
splendidly "gain to themselves a good degree" (R. V., 
"standing"). Upon this slender foundation has been 
built the justification of the practice of treating the dia- 
conate as a first step to the position of presbyter, in the 
Roman Catholic and the Anglican churches. But the 
New Testament diaconate is a lifelong office, and not a 
step to another office. 

What is said of elders in the opening of chapter v, ap- 
plies manifestly to seniors in years. Not so with verse 17: 
"Let the elders who preside [proestotes] well be held worthy 
of double honor, especially those who labor in discourse 



The New Testament Age 31 

and in teaching." The reference here is to the two kinds 
of church service, taken from the usage of the synagogue. 
At the first, in the forenoon, prayer, praise and the preach- 
ing of the word were chief. At the second, called by the 
Jews the beth-ha-midrash (or "house of instruction"), 
teaching took the place of preaching, and was in the hands 
of the best instructed members of the assembly, by pref- 
erence the elders. Questions were asked and answered 
freely on some subject of general interest and profit. It 
was in such an assembly that Mary found her son, " sitting 
in the midst of the teachers, both hearing them, and asking 
them questions" (Luke ii: 46 ). 1 It is to this part of the 
work of the ecclesia that reference almost invariably is 
made when the word "doctrine" (R. V., "teaching") is 
used in our English Bible. 

Paul here recognizes only one sort of elder, but three 
functions connected with the office, in which they did not 
equally excel. Some presided well in the meetings of the 
ecclesia; some found their best scope in preaching the 
word of reconciliation in the forenoon service; and some 
excelled in the still harder work of teaching the Scriptures 
to the people. Paul's ideal elder is the one who does all 
three in the best way. This, however, does not give him 
any preeminence but that of usefulness, and possibly a 
larger provision for his personal support, as such work 
must make a larger demand upon his time and strength. 
He has not even a title of office different from that of less 
effective men. 

The Apostle proceeds to instruct Timothy as to the 
duties of his position as an evangelist (2 Timothy iv : 5) 
or apostolic delegate in a Christian ecclesia. He is not 
to spare those elders or deacons whose faults of life or 

1 See Dr. Henry Clay Trumbull '3 Yale Lectures on the Sunday School, Phila- 
delphia, 1888. 



32 The Historic Episcopate 

conduct are proven, that a wholesome fear may affect 
the rest. But he is to exact the same degree of proof in 
these cases as Jewish law required. That he is to "lay- 
hands on no man suddenly/' does not concern ordinations, 
but — as the words which follow show — the restoration 
of penitents after excommunication. Neither of these 
epistles indicates that ordination is one of his responsi- 
bilities, or that the presbytery of the Ephesian ecclesia 
was debarred from doing what had been done in Timothy's 
own case by that of Lystra. 

The Second Epistle is more personal to its recipient, and 
has its worth in indicating what, in the Apostle's view, 
was the work of an evangelist. He charges Timothy 
"in the sight of God," to "preach the word; be urgent 
in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all 
longsuffering and teaching. ... Be thou sober in all 
things, suffer hardship, do the work of an evangelist, ful- 
fil thy ministry. " Here also we have the cure of souls 
put forward as the great work of the Christian minister 
of whatever degree, as it was that of the Apostle himself. 

The Epistle to Titus tells us that this evangelist had 
been left in Crete to "set in order the things that were 
wanting, and to appoint elders in every city" where an 
ecclesia had been gathered by the Apostle himself. To 
him also the Apostle states the qualifications of an elder, 
again using of that officer the term episkopos, thus de- 
scribing him as one who has a share in the oversight of the 
ecclesia. This is the fourth time the Apostle uses the 
term, and always as descriptive of the pastoral labors of 
the elders of the ecclesia (Acts xx:28; Philippians i: 1; 
1 Timothy iii: 1; Titus i: 7). 

The Epistle to the Hebrews bids the unknown ecclesia to 
which it was addressed to "remember them that had the 
rule over you [more exactly "your guides"], who spoke 



The New Testament Age 33 

to you the word of God. ... Be not carried away 
by divers and strange teachings. . . . Obey them 
that have the rule over you ["your guides"] and submit, 
for they lose their sleep for the sake of your souls, as hav- 
ing to render an account" (Hebrews xiii: 7, 9, 17). As 
Jerome points out, the ecclesia thus addressed is under a 
plurality of teachers and pastors, of equal rank and 
responsibility. It has a church order identical with that 
described in the Acts and the Epistles of Paul. 

The Epistle of James is of especial interest here, as the 
work of "the Lord's brother," the alleged "Bishop of 
Jerusalem." As it is addressed to the Christian believers 
of the Jewish Dispersion, it would have suited its author 
well to have called himself by a title which connected him 
honorably with the holy city. But he describes himself 
only as "a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ." 

The epistle bears out the description Dr. Hort gives of 
James, as desiring to keep unbroken the bond between 
his Jewish brethren and the Christian ecclesia. He 
alone of all the New Testament writers uses the word 
"synagogue" for a meeting of the Christian ecclesia 
(ii:2). In one passage only he refers to church order: 
"Is any among you sick? let him send for the elders of 
the ecclesia; and let them pray over him, anointing 
with oil in the name of the Lord" (v:14). Did the 
"Bishop of Jerusalem" forget what was due to his 
brother bishops when he wrote this direction? Or did 
Jerusalem, with the Apostles at hand, need a monarchic 
Bishop so much more than did these outlying churches 
that James was the only example of that office? 

Revelation gives us a picture of the Church in heaven, 
which reflects as in outline the Church upon earth. The 
seer beholds a "great multitude, which no man could num- 
ber, out of every nation and of all tribes and peoples and 
3 



34 The Historic Episcopate 

tongues, standing before the Throne and before the Lamb, 
clothed in white robes, and palms in their hands; and they 
cry with a great voice, saying, 'Salvation to our God 
which sitteth upon the throne, and to the Lamb' " 
(Revelation vii: 9, 10). "And around the throne thrones 
four and twenty, and upon the thrones four and twenty 
elders sitting, clothed in white garments, and upon their 
heads crowns of gold." They it is who respond to the 
ceaseless adoration of the four living beings, casting their 
crowns before the throne, and joining in the endless song 
of heavenly praise (Revelation iv: 4, 8-11). Heaven has 
its celestial presbytery, whose lesser thrones encircle the 
throne, second only to its majesty. From their number 
comes the interpreter, who comforts the seer by the as- 
surance that the Lamb can open the book of prophecy. 
This is not the symbolism a Cyprian or a Laud would 
have employed to express that heaven's order reflects 
itself in the Church on earth. 

Such is the account the New Testament gives us of the 
procedure of the Apostles in establishing a ministry in 
the ecclesias of God. Nor have we anywhere a suggestion 
that this was an imperfect order, and that it was to be 
replaced by another during or after their time. The 
instructions given by the great Apostles manifestly imply 
its permanence, since they contemplate the existence of 
but two offices, with a plurality of each in every church. 
These are the only ordinary and local officers the New 
Testament knows of. The apostolate everywhere is con- 
nected with the personal testimony to the resurrection of 
our Lord, so that it could not outlast the generation of 
the first witnesses. As for successors to them, that was 
made unthinkable by the general expectation that he 
would return in some visible way to resume visible rule 
over his Church, before that generation had passed away. 



The New Testament Age 35 

"We all shall not sleep," says the Apostle, "but we shall 
all be changed." Every year they looked for the advent 
of the Lord to judgment. Paul found the Thessalonian 
Christians distressed about those who had fallen asleep 
before the great event (1 Thessalonians iv: 13; cf. Dr. 
Salmon's Introduction, p. 363). 

From Clement of Rome, or whoever was the author of 
the epistle from the church in Rome to the church in 
Corinth, we learn that the Apostles themselves came to 
contemplate a longer delay in that matter than they did 
at the first: 

The Apostles brought us the Good Tidings from the Lord Jesus 

Christ Through regions and cities proclaiming 

this, they appointed their first fruits, after testing them in the 
Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should be- 
lieve, . . . and then gave them a farther injunction to the 
end that, if they fell asleep, other approved men should succeed 
to their ministry. 

The reputed and probable author of this statement 
certainly had known one, and possibly two, of the 
Apostles. When he wrote they all were dead; but he 
has learned nothing of that threefold ministry which was 
to supersede the ministry of "bishops and deacons" the 
Apostles had established. He did know, he says, that 
they had been forewarned by their Lord that there would 
arise a strife in the churches over the "oversight"; and 
this he finds fulfilled in the expulsion of certain presbyters 
in Corinth from their office. 

Many, if not most, of the asserters of divine right for 
the monarchic episcopate admit that the institution can- 
not be tra ced back to the period which is described in the 
New Testament. They seem to claim that it arose, with 
apostolic sanction, in the period between the writing of 
the parts of the New Testament I have quoted, and the 
expiry of the apostolic college, or between the overthrow 



36 The Historic Episcopate 

of Jerusalem and the reign of Trajan (A. D. 70-98), and 
that this is proved by the existence of monarchic epis- 
copacy in Asia early in the second century, as shown by 
the Ignatian epistles, and by the positive testimony of 
Hegesippus, Tertullian and Ireneus at the close of the 
second century. The value of this evidence I shall dis- 
cuss in the next chapters. 

They also claim that the principle of episcopal author- 
ity and oversight finds recognition in the New Testament 

(1) in the relation of James to the church in Jerusalem; 

(2) in the authority conveyed to Timothy and Titus by 
Paul; (3) by the mention of " angels" as ruling the seven 
churches of the Revelation. 

(1) Of the claim as to James, I have spoken already. 
It is noticeable that not even the Ebionite authorities, 
whom Hegesippus has used, give him the title of bishop, 
and we have seen that he does not use it himself, and takes 
for granted the presbyterial government of the churches 
to which he writes his Epistle, and no recorded act or 
saying of his is concerned with the government or direc- 
tion of the ecclesia of Jerusalem. 

(2) "The New Testament itself," says Dr. Lightfoot, 
"contains as yet no direct and indisputable notices of a 
localized episcopate in the Gentile churches, as distin- 
guished from the movable episcopate exercised by Timo- 
thy in Ephesus and by Titus in Crete." 1 Even Cyprian 
would have been puzzled by the phrase "movable epis- 
copate," however natural it may seem to an English or 
American Anglican, with the huge sees of their churches 
in mind, and "a railway pass for a pastoral staff," as Dr. 
Hugh Miller Thompson, afterwards "Bishop of Mis- 
sissippi" (47,156 square miles), once said. As both 
Timothy and Titus, however, were called away by the 

1 The Apostolic Fathers, vol. ii. 



The New Testament Age 37 

Apostle from those fields of labor, the adjective is expe- 
dient, that no precedent might be furnished for non- 
resident bishops of later days. 

Paul, in writing to the Ephesians, says of the gifts 
wherewith our Lord has enriched his Church, "He gave 
some to be apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evan- 
gelists; and some, pastors and teachers." To Timothy he 
writes, "Do the work of an evangelist, fulfil thy minis- 
try." As evangelists Timothy and Titus were doing a 
work which came nearer to that of the Apostles than did 
the local minister of any church, whatever his title or 
rank. The mission of the Apostles was world-wide, to 
"all the nations" (Matthew xxviii: 19). It was aggres- 
sive, as carrying the good news to cities not reached. It 
was foundational, as establishing ecclesias and providing 
them with the equipment which would enable them to 
grow in numerical strength, deepen their spiritual life 
and perpetuate their own existence. Where the Apostles, 
especially Paul, found men fit to share in this work, they 
took them as coworkers. Barnabas, Silvanus (Silas), 
Timothy, Titus, Apollos, Aristarchus, Crescens and Philip 
of Caesarea are names of men we know to have been thus 
employed as evangelists, and doubtless there were others 
in that age. 

After the death of the Apostles this class of itinerant 
workers went on until the third century. They con- 
tinued the Church's aggressive work, and were sometimes 
honored with the name of apostles, but more commonly 
known as evangelists. The goal of their labors, like that 
of the Apostles, was to establish self-supporting and self- 
perpetuating churches, to intrust them to faithful elders, 
and to commit them to the Lord's grace. Eusebius adds 
the name of the prophet Quadratus to the list of evangel- 
ists, and says of them: 



38 The Historic Episcopate 

There were many others noted in those times, who held the 
first rank of the succession from the Apostles. And these, as 
goodly disciples of such men, everywhere built upon the founda- 
tions of the churches laid before by the Apostles, enlarged the 
E reaching of the word, and scattered the saving seed 0/ the 
ingdom of heaven throughout the inhabited world 

Withdrawing from their own country, they accomplished the 
work of evangelists to those who had not as yet heard the word 
of faith. . . . And they, having laid the foundations of 
the faith in strange places — that alone being their work — and 
having appointed pastors for others, and committed to these 
the care [tillage] of those who had just been brought in, went 
on to other places and peoples with the grace and the help of 
God. ... It is impossible for us to enumerate by name all 
who became pastors and evangelists in the first succession from 
the Apostles in the Church throughout the world. 1 . 

In the early Christian literature it is the Teaching 
[Didache] of the Twelve Apostles at the opening of the 
second century which tells us most of these " successors 
of the Apostles." It gives them the name of apostles, 

and says: 

As to the Apostles and Prophets, do according to the ordinance 
of the Gospel: and let even.- Apostle that comes to you be re- 
ceived as the Lord. And he shall not remain beyond one day; 
but if there be need, the next also. But if he remain three days, 
he is a false prophet. And let the Apostle, when departing, 
taking nothing but bread to last him until he reach his next 
stopping place; and if he ask for money, he is a false prophet. 

Besides this we have references to such apostles in 
Hennas, in Ireneus. in Tertullian and in Origen. 

The need for such a class of unlocalized workers lessened 
when churches had been gathered in all the cities of the 
empire, and placed under pastors by these itinerants. 
The office always had been hard to keep within the bounds 
of proper responsibility. It was claimed by many who 
had no fitness for it, but who enjoyed the prestige and the 
authority it conferred. Paul writes to the church of 
Corinth of "false apostles, deceitful workers, fashioning 
themselves into apostles of Christ " (2 Corinthians xi : 13); 

1 Eusebii Hutoria Eccletitutica, Lib. Ill, Cap. 38. 



The Xra: Testament Age 39 

and our Lord in Revelation thus praises the church in 
Ephesus: "Thou canst not bear evil men, and didst try 
them which call themselves apostles, and they are not. and 
didst find them false" (Revelation ii:2). We have seen 
the warnings of the Didache against those who used the 
pretence of being apostles to live off the churches. Ter- 
tullian asks. "Who are false apostles, unless spurious 
evangelist- So this class of workers ceased from the 
service of the church, but not until the true men among 
them had accomplished great things for their Master's 
kingdom. Nobody of that age connects them with the 
monarchic bishops, as their duties and their fields of labor 
were altogether different. 

(3) That the "angels" of the seven churches of Asia 
were not monarchic bishops we have reason to assume after 
seeing the picture of the Church in heaven with its presby- 
tery, drawn in the same book. Nor did anyone in later 
days use the title "angel*' for a bishop of any sort, until 
the rise of the Catholic Apostolic Church in 1831—1835. 
No later bishop of these seven churches calls himself, or 
is called, an "angel." Where the word is used of a church 
officer, it is applied to a deacon who serves as a messenger 
to other churches. Drs. John Lightfoot, Albrecht Bengel 
and George B. Winer think these angels of the Asian 
churches were no more than such deacons: but the tone 
in which they are addressed implies something higher 
and more responsible than this. 

Jerome and others of the fathers take them to have been 
members of the angelic hierarchy, who exercised a special 
guardianship over these Asian churches, after the fashion 
of the "princes'' who in the Book of Daniel exercise such 
a guardianship over the nations. But the language of 
personal censure used to most of them excludes this inter- 
pretation. 



40 The Historic Episcopate 

"The language used concerning them," says Dean 
Stanley, in his Sermons and Essays on the Apostolical Age, 
"compels us to regard them not as individual ministers, 
but as the churches themselves, personified in their 
guardian or representative angels." It is the language 
of the Jewish apocalyptic, which constantly personified 
bodies of men as an individual. This is shown by the 
close of each address (or epistle): "He that hath an ear, 
let him hear what the Spirit saith to the churches." 

We may dismiss, therefore, the three supposed sugges- 
tions of the monarchic episcopate in the New Testament, 
as having no pertinence to the matter in hand. The 
apostolic records know of no permanent and local officers 
in the churches higher than the presbyter-bishops, of 
which each church has a plurality. It knows of no suc- 
cessors to the Apostles, unless it be the class of evangelists, 
which afterwards died out when its work was done. It 
knows of no inequality among the presbyter-bishops of 
the local church, by which one of these is entitled to pre- 
eminence above the rest. It warns the churches against 
the growth of an unchristian ambition for preeminence. 
And the last of the Apostles warns his contemporaries 
that that ambition was already at work in men like 
Diotrephes. 

Before bringing to a close this review of the principles 
and the practices of the churches in the New Testament, 
it is necessary to say something of the two terms pres- 
buteros and episcopos, commonly rendered "presbyter" 
(or "elder") and "bishop" (or "overseer"). It is im- 
material to the argument whether we take the latter term 
as the title of an office at this time, or (with Dr. Hort) as 
descriptive of a function of the office of elder. "In the 
second century," he says, "the word was certainly used 
as a title, though for a different office; and it w r as already 



The New Testament Age 41 

in various use as a title in the Greek world. But against 
this we must set the fact that both in the Bible (Septua- 
gint, Apocrypha and the New Testament itself: 1 Peter 
ii : 25) and in other literature, including Philo, it retains 
its common etymological or descriptive meaning, 'over- 
seer.'" 

The term "elder" takes us back to the history of the 
Jewish people. As early as the time of Joseph (Genesis 
50: 7) we find the local rulers of the people called " elders" 
(zikenim). Seventy elders were associated with Moses 
to relieve him of the burdens of government (Numbers xi : 
16, 17). In later days "the elders of the cities" were the 
responsible rulers, who might be called to account for 
any disorder that arose (Judges viii: 14; 1 Samuel xi: 3; 
xvi:4; xxx:26; 1 Kings xxi:8, 11; 1 Kings x:l; Ezra 
x: 14; Lamentations ii: 10; 2 Maccabees xiv: 37). 

The rise of the synagogue as the local center of weekly 
worship, instruction and discipline, dates from the period 
after the return from the Exile. It was ruled by a San- 
hedrin of elders, who exercised the power to "cast out" 
or excommunicate those who sinned against the law or the 
traditions. One (or more) of these was invested with 
the title of "Ruler of the Synagogue" (archisunagogos), 
and seems to have presided at the Sabbath worship, and 
to have called upon suitable persons to read, pray or 
exhort (Mark v: 22; Luke iv: 16, 17; viii: 49; xiii: 14; 
Acts xiii: 15; xviii: 8, 17). It is noteworthy that no 
such distinctive title is given to any of the elders of the 
Christian ecclesia, although Paul recognizes in some of 
them an especial fitness to preside (1 Timothy v: 17). 

The term episkopos is found in the Septuagint Greek 
version of the Old Testament, as rendering of pakid 
("overseer") in several places. But the office of overseer, 
whether of the work upon the Temple, or of various classes 



42 The Historic Episcopate 

of officials, seems to have been obsolete in New Testament 
times, 1 and never to have had such currency as did the 
title "elder." As the term is used four times by the 
Apostle to the Gentiles, it is natural to seek a Greek 
source for its church use. But the data for this are ex- 
tremely scanty. 

Dr. Edwin Hatch believed he found the clue to its use 
in the Hellenistic and Gentile churches in two inscriptions, 
which employ this word as a title of the financial officers 
of a pagan temple in northern Syria, and of a pagan as- 
sociation in the island of Thera. He thinks this is con- 
firmed by the Greek version of the Old Testament made 
in the second century by Symmachus, an Ebionite Chris- 
tian. In this the officers appointed by Pharaoh, at 
Joseph's suggestion, to buy up corn in the years of plenty 
(Genesis xli : 34) are called episkopoi. He traces the rise 
of a monarchic episcopacy to the influence which naturally 
accrued to the presiding member of the council of the 
elders of the ecclesia, to whom the offertory was brought, 
and who was "primarily responsible for its distribution." 
He regards "the seven" of the Acts (vi:3; xxi: 8) as a 
body of officials for general utility, afterwards differen- 
tiated into bishops and deacons. 

It is Dr. Hatch's view that the presbyters were not so 
much possessors of an office, as members of a class, whose 
age secured them a veneration buttressed by long tradi- 
tion, and recognized in both Gentile and Jewish usage. 
As such, they had the duty of arbitrating between Chris- 
tians who quarreled, and of passing upon cases of moral 
offence. But they had no share in the management of 

1 Clement of Rome seems to think its use in the Church was foretold by 
Isaiah (lx: 17) , of which he gives the rendering: ' ' I will establish their overseers 
[episkopous] in righteousness and their ministers [diakonous] in faith." The Sep- 
tuagint rendering is: "And I will give thee rulers [archontos] in peace and thy 
overseers [episkopous] in righteousness," which comes much closer to the 
sense of the original Hebrew. 



The New Testament Age 43 

church finance, and were not charged with preaching or 
the direction of worship. 1 

These positions are irreconcilable with both the lan- 
guage of the New Testament and that of early Christian 
writers. The statements found in the Acts about Barna- 
bas and Paul appointing presbyters in the churches of 
inner Asia, and that employed by Paul as to Titus ap- 
pointing presbyters in Crete, both imply that these were 
not a class which attained their distinction from the body 
of the ecclesia through their advance in years and the 
respect for age. So what Paul says of presbyters who 
labor in discourse and in teaching, and in presiding at the 
meetings of the ecclesia, certainly is inconsistent with the 
view that they dealt only in arbitration and discipline. 
And the language used by Clement of Rome in the next 
generation, as we shall see, cannot be reconciled with Dr. 
Hatch's hypothesis. 2 

Dr. Hatch, indeed, never quotes either Acts or the 
Pastoral Epistles on this point. Probably he agreed 
with the Tubingen school in regarding both as written 
for a controversial purpose, in the second century. Dr. 
Adolph Harnack, who translated Dr. Hatch's work into 
German, and who accepted his theory in the main, took 
this view of their date and character at that time. But 
even if this were true, it would not impair the force of 
their testimony, but only make it bear upon a later time 

1 See The Organization of the Early Christian Churches; the Bampton Lectures 
for the Year 1880, by Edwin Hatch, D.D. Fifth edition (London, 1895). 
See on the other side The Christian Ecclesia, by Dr. F. J. A. Hort (London, 1897); 
and The Church of the Sub-Apostolic Age, by Dr. James Heron (London, 1888). 

2 Dr. Dollinger (Hippolytus and Callistus, pp. 313-317) sees in the title of 
presbyter a distinct reference to the teaching function: "It has long ago been 
remarked that the name presbyter was, at the end of the second century, still 
used of bishops. It has been rightly remarked that (in Ireneus) the notion 
of what is ancient and honorable is associated with the word, and that the name 
presbuteros, even when given to a bishop, was a title of honor; but unmistakably 
something further must have been implied in this title, viz., the authority to 
teach, the magisterium. Bishops or others are called presbyters primarily as 
the holders and teachers of ecclesiastical tradition and knowledge." This is 
in harmony with the Jewish use of the word, for the elders of the synagogue were 
mainly teachers of the people. 



44 The Historic Episcopate 

than the age of the Apostles. At whatever date the Acts 
and the Pastoral Epistles were written, at that time the 
ordination of presbyters of the ecclesia must have been 
usual, and they also must have been taking a share in the 
worship and teaching of the ecclesia, which Dr. Hatch 
denies them. Now that Dr. Harnack has been brought 
to see that the book of the Acts is the work of Luke, 
he may revise his views as to the eldership. 

Dr. Hatch thinks that the primitive bishop corre- 
sponded more to the treasurer of a beneficial society than 
to anything else in modern usage. The evidence alleged 
for this chiefly financial character comes mainly from the 
third and fourth centuries. At that time great stress was 
laid upon the management of the income of the churches 
and much complaint was heard of abuses in the adminis- 
tration of charity. But this is not the impression created 
by the literature of the second century, with the exception 
of Cyprian. The statements in Clement of Rome and 
Poly carp coincide with the language of Acts xi: 30 in 
placing this matter, apart from the actual distribution 
of relief to the poor, in the hands of the presbyters of the 
ecclesia. 

We find in Dr. Hatch's theory no real explanation of 
the use of the term episkopos (overseer) to describe one 
of the functions of the presbyter, and presumably the 
most important function. Was it not to emphasize the 
difference between the Jewish elder and that of the Chris- 
tian Church? The duties of the Jewish elder, like those 
of the modern rabbi, were discharged within the four 
walls of the synagogue. 1 They never exercised that cure 

1 My friend, the late Simon Stern, once told me of hearing a Jewish rabbi of 
Philadelphia replying from the pulpit to the complaint of his flock that he did 
not visit them in their homes, as Christian ministers visited their people. "Why 
should we?" he replied; "we are not your pastors; we have no cure of souls, 
such as the Christian minister has. You would not welcome us if we came among 
you on that footing. And for us to come for mere social visits would be waste 
of our time and of yours also." 



The New Testament Age 45 

of souls which is so distinctive a work of the Christian 
ministry. They were not shepherds or pastors of the 
people, but readers of the law, teachers of the traditions. 
They had no direct and personal responsibility for the 
conduct and spiritual growth of those who waited on their 
ministrations. 

Peter very rightly traces the new character of Christian 
ministry to our Lord himself, calling him " the Shepherd 
and Bishop of your souls." He was such to the Twelve in 
his careful oversight of their thoughts and acts, and his 
training of them for a similar service to others. He still 
is such to his people, partly through his ministers, and 
still more through his Spirit. How new and unusual this 
was escapes us. The very idea of it was wanting to the 
Judaism of his time. When he looked upon the people, 
"He was moved with compassion for them, because they 
were distressed and scattered, as sheep not having a 
shepherd." He placed himself in a relation to them more 
intimate and helpful than any they ever had known; 
and he established this relation as a permanent element 
of his kingdom. He gave discipleship a new meaning, 
and he sent out the Twelve with the commission to make 
such disciples of "all the nations." They were to create 
throughout mankind a ministry of such intimacy and 
helpfulness as had existed in him toward them. 

"Shepherd and Bishop of your souls !" Peter unites the 
two terms as if mutually explanatory. There are three 
things which go to make up the work of the shepherd, 
as our Lord describes it. The first is that the shepherd 
has the sheep on his mind, as his sheep, known to him 
by name, needing his thoughtfulness and foresight to 
supply their daily needs, requiring even that he may have 
to lay down his life for them in time of peril. The second 
is the willing response of the sheep to this care, as they 



46 The Historic Episcopate 

know the shepherd's voice, and are led to the pasture or 
the fold by him — not driven, for he goes before them. 
The last is the exercise of a constant direction by loving 
pressure on this side and that of their lives, so that they 
acquire the habits of wisdom and goodness from his train- 
ing. And all this enters into the conception of the pas- 
toral work of the Christian presbyter-bishop, who takes 
up the work of his Master in the cure of souls. 

So Peter writes: " The elders therefore among you I ex- 
hort, who am a fellow-elder, and a witness of the sufferings 
of Christ, who am also a partaker of the glory that shall be 
revealed: Tend [shepherd, poimanate] the flock of God 
which is among you, exercising the oversight, [bishoping, 
episcopountes] 1 thereof, not of necessity, but according to 
the will of God ; nor yet for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind ; 
neither as lording it over the charge allotted to you, but 
making yourselves ensamples to the flock. And when the 
chief Shepherd shall be manifested, ye shall receive the 
crown of glory that fadeth not away." (1 Peter v: 1-5). 
Peter, as he wrote this, must have been recalling the morn- 
ing at the lakeside, and the Saviour's three injunctions to 
himself: "Feed my lambs; shepherd my sheep; feed 
my sheep." It is one of the many reminiscences of the 
gospel story in this great Epistle. 

The descriptive term "bishop" (episcopos), like that 
of "shepherd" or "pastor," emphasizes the especial 

1 Westcott and Hort omit episcopountes from their text, on account of its 
omission from the Vatican and Sinaitic MSS. But it is found in the Alexandrian 
MS. and many others, and in the old translations, and is retained by Lachman, 
Tregelles and Teschendorf, as also by the revisers of the English Bible. Drs. 
Westcott and Hort were of the company of the revisers, and exerted a great 
influence in determining the text on which the revision was based; but at this 
point their associates parted from them, and retained the word, while stating 
on the margin that "some ancient authorities omit" it. 

As Dr. Heron points out, if it be an interpolation, it must be as early as the 
first half of the second century, when the oversight of the churches was still 
exercised by presbyters. No interpolator would have inserted it after that 
duty had been assumed by a separate class called episcopoi. It seems most 
probable that it was omitted after that change by some scribe, who sought to 
separate the presbyters as far as possible from the episcopal function. 



The New Testament Age 47 

calling of the Christian presbyter to care for the spiritual 
growth of the Christian people, or what is called "the 
cure of souls." It is given them because they are to 
"watch" [or, "lose their sleep"] in behalf of your souls, as 
they that shall give account" (Hebrews xiii: 17). Its 
rightful symbol is the shepherd's crook (crozier), now 
unmeaning in the hand of an official so busy with matters 
of ecclesiastical administration as to be obliged to delegate 
the transcendent, Christlike work of shepherding the 
people to his subordinates in office. The pastoral bishop 
is the successor of the Apostle. 

Dean Stanley has observed that, in the earliest of the 
Roman catacombs, the only symbol of Christian faith is 
the figure of the Good Shepherd, "with a crook or a 
shepherd's pipe in one hand, and on his shoulder a lamb, 
which he carefully carries and holds with the other hand"; 
and that this "continues always the chief, always the 
prevailing sign, as long as these burial places were used." 
"On the other hand, there is no allusion to the Good 
Shepherd (with one exception) in the writers of the second 
century, and very few in the third; hardly any in Athana- 
sius or in Jerome. If we come down much later, there is 
hardly any in the Summa Theologice of Thomas Aquinas, 
none in the Tridentine Catechism, none in the Thirty- 
nine Articles, none in the Westminster Confession. The 
only prominent allusions we find to this figure in the writers 
of early times are drawn from that same undercurrent 
of Christian society to which the catacombs themselves 
belong." "What was the popular religion of the first 
Christians? It was, in one word, the religion of the Good 
Shepherd. The kindness, the courage, the grace, the 
love, the beauty of the Good Shepherd was to them, if 
we may so say, prayer book and articles, creed and canons, 
all in one. They looked on that figure, and it conveyed 



48 The Historic Episcopate 

to them all that they wanted." 1 If this was true, it was 
because the figure recalled to them all the Good Shepherd 
was to them in living guidance and the shaping of char- 
acter. 

John Ruskin, while not always a first-rate authority 
in expounding the Scriptures, states rightly enough the 
apostolical conception of the bishop's pastoral office. 
In Sesame and Lilies (1865) he says: "Their office is not 
to rule, though it may be vigorously to exhort and rebuke; 
it is the king's office to rule; the bishop's to oversee the 
flock, to number it, sheep by sheep, to be ready to give 
full account of it. . . . Down that back street, Bill 
and Nancy knocking each other's teeth out! — Does the 
bishop know all about it? Has he had his eye upon them? 
Can he circumstantially explain how Bill got into the habit 
of beating Nancy about the head? If he cannot, he is 
no bishop — he has sought to be at the helm instead of the 
masthead; he has no sight of things. 'Nay,' you say, 
1 it is not his duty to look after Bill on the back street. . . 
. That is not our idea of a bishop.' Perhaps not; but it 
was St. Paul's, and it was Milton's." 

In his Time and Tide, by Weave and Tyne (1867), he says 
of these statements: "The reviewers in the ecclesiastical 
journals laughed at them, as a rhapsody, when the book 
came out; none having the slightest notion of what I 
meant (nor do I well see how it could be otherwise!). 
Nevertheless, I meant precisely and literally what is 
said there, namely that a bishop's duty being to watch 
over the souls of his people, and give account of every 
one of them, it becomes practically necessary for him first 
to give some account of their bodies. Which he was wont 
to do in the early days of Christianity by help of a person 

1 Christian Institutions: Essays on Ecclesiastical Subjects (London, 1881), 
pp. 253-255, 



The New Testament Age 49 

called 'deacon' or 'ministering servant, ' whose name is 

still retained among preliminary ecclesiastical dignities, 
vainly enough! Putting, however, all question of forms 
ami names aside, the thing actually needing to be done is 
this— that over every hundred (or some not much greater 
number) of the families composing a Christian state, 
there should be appointed an overseer, or bishop, to render 
account, to the state, of the life of every individual in 
those families . . . with the patient and gentle 
watchfulness which true Christian pastors now exercise 
over their flocks; only with a higher legal authority of 
interference on due occasion." 

In an earlier work, Notes on the Construction of Sheep- 
folds (1851), Mr. Ruskin insisted on the reunion of the 
Churches of England and of Scotland, and says this is 
to be done "by keeping to Scripture. The members of 
the Scottish Church have not the shadow of an excuse 
for refusing episcopacy. It has indeed been abused 
among them — grievously abused; but it is in the Bible, 
and that is all they have a right to ask." We have not 
the shadow of an excuse for rejecting such an episcopacy 
as we have seen Mr. Ruskin describe. That sort is in 
the Bible, and it, or something very like it, is in the 
Church of Scotland; but it is not what the Church of 
England and her daughter churches call episcopacy. 



CHAPTER II 

The Presbyterian Fathers 

From the records of the apostolic age in the New Testa- 
ment, I pass to those of the sub-apostolic age in the early 
Christian literature, to about the middle of the second 
century; and I shall try to quote every passage which 
bears upon the question. In doing so I shall distinguish 
between the plural episcopate of the first age, and the 
monarchic episcopate, which we find in possession of the 
field after A. D. 150. I note here that Sir William M. 
Ramsay puts this date at A. D. 175. 1 

The documents of this period are: 

(1) The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (so called). 

(2) The Shepherd of Hermas of Rome. 

(3) The epistle of the church in Rome to the church in 
Corinth, which bears the name of Clement of Rome. 

(4) The Christian homily, of unknown authorship, 
generally known as "The Second Epistle of Clement. ,, 

(5) The epistle of Polycarp of Smyrna to the church in 
Philippi. 

(6) The Syriac version of the Scriptures, called the 
Peschitto or "Simple." 

(7) The first Apology of Justin the Martyr. 

1 Adolph Harnack says that "about the year 140 the state of the organiza- 
tion of the congregations seems to have been still very various. Here and there, 
no doubt, the suitable arrangement of appointing but one bishop had been 
carried through, although probably there had been no important elevation of 
his functions, and the prophets and teachers still had control of the teaching. 
On the other hand, in other congregations there still may always have been a 
plurality of bishops, while the prophets and teachers usually no longer played 
an important part." {Dogmengeschichte, I, 183.) 

5° 



Tlw Presbyterian Fathers 51 

\) The epistles ascribed to Ignatius of Antioch. 

The first seven are harmonious witnesses to the govern- 
ment of the sub-apostolic churches by a plurality of offi- 
cers, called sometimes presbyters (elders) and sometimes 
bishops (overseers). They are reinforced by the accounts 
of the rejection of the heretic Noetus at Smyrna, the 
heretic Marcion at Rome, and the fanatical Montanists at 
Ancyra, by the presbyters of those churches. These 
accounts have been preserved for us by Hippolytus of 
Rome, Epiphanius of Salamis, and Rhodon (quoted by 
Eusebius). 

The eighth of the series, the epistles ascribed to Ig- 
natius of Antioch, offer what Dr. Lightfoot calls "the 
most perplexing problem which confronts the student of 
early Church history." They will be treated in a separate 
chapter. 

(1) A book called The Teaching (Didache) of the Twelve 
Apostles is mentioned by a number of the fathers, but 
reached us only in quotations, until it was discovered by 
Philotheos Bryennius in an eleventh century MS., in a 
library at Constantinople, and was published in 1883. 
It has, of course, no claim to apostolic origin, although its 
style corresponds more closely to that of the New Testa- 
ment writers than does any other piece of sub-apostolic 
literature. "The work," says Dr. Salmon, "bears every 
mark of great antiquity; and it has been commonly ac- 
cepted as belonging to the beginning of the second century, 
if not to the latter part of the first." 1 It is the general 
conclusion that it originated in either Egypt or Syria, 
the lands nearest to the cradle of the church. It is 
probably the oldest of the post-apostolic documents, and 
the first witness to the order which existed in the churches 
after the death of the Twelve. At the time it was written 

1 Introduction to the New Testament, p. 555. 



52 The Historic Episcopate 

the offices of apostle and of prophet were still recognized 
in the churches. The former designated a class of itin- 
erant ministers, elsewhere called evangelists; and the 
Teaching gives tests to distinguish the true from the false. 
As to the regular and ordinary officials of the church, 
the Teaching represents the Apostles as saying: 

Choose for yourselves bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord, 
men meek and not avaricious, and true and proved; for they 
too perform for you the work of prophets and teachers. There- 
fore despise them not, for they are they who are honored among 
you along with the prophets and teachers. 

The work was afterwards expanded and interpolated in 
the seventh book of the so-called Constitutions of the Holy 
Apostles in the third century, in accordance with the 
system of monarchic episcopacy which then had come to 
prevail. 1 

(2) A prophet of the class recognized in the Teaching 
was Hermas, who was resident at Rome in the opening 
years of the second century. The Muratorian Fragment, 
written between A. D. 170 and A. D. 180, has confused 
the chronology of his life by making him the brother of 
that Pius who is said to have been Bishop of Rome about 
the middle of the century. This is impossible, in view of 
the position assigned to his work the Shepherd as inspired 
scripture by Ireneus, Tertullian (in his orthodox period), 
Clement of Alexandria and Origen. Nor can it be recon- 
ciled with his picture of the church in Rome, and his refer- 
ence to Clement of Rome. "A careful examination of 
the Shepherd of Hermas," says Dr. Salmon, "has con- 
vinced me that, instead of being a work of the middle of 
the second century, it dates from its very beginning." 2 

1 An exhaustive discussion of the Didache is given by Rev. James Heron in 
The Church of the Sub-Apostolic Age: Its Life, Worship, and Organization, in the 
Light of " The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles." (London, 1888.) Mr. Heron's 
scholarship does honor to the Irish Presbyterian Church. 

3 Introduction to the New Testament, p. 46. 



The Presbyterian Fathers 53 

The general opinion is that it was written about A. D. 
100-110. 

The work is divided into three books, respectively of 
Visions, Mandates and Similitudes. It is written in a 
simple and popular style, makes free use of the apocalyp- 
tic literature, especially Daniel, and claims prophetic 
authority. Its title is one of the two allusions which 
Dean Stanley finds to the Good Shepherd in the early 
Christian writers; and he describes it as "the once 
popular book of devotion, the Pilgrim's Progress of the 
Church of the second century, which was spread far and 
wide from Italy even to Greece, Egypt and Abyssinia, 
namely, the once universal, once canonical, once inspired, 
now forgotten and disparaged, but always curious book." 
It is a summons to the Church to return to her first love, 
and to maintain the high standard of Christian living upon 
which her usefulness depends. At the close of his second 
vision, the Church, in the form of an aged woman, ad- 
dresses him: 

There came to me the aged woman and asked me if I had already 
given the book to the presbyters. I denied that I had given it. 
"You have done rightly," she said, "for I have words to add to 
it. But when I have finished all the words, they shall be made 
known through thee to all the elect. Thou shalt write, there- 
fore, two little scrolls, and send one to Clement, and Clement 
shall send it to the cities abroad; for that is what has been 
intrusted to him. But Grapte shall admonish the widows 
and the orphans. But thou shalt read it to this city, along 
with the elders who are over the church." 

This Roman Clement may well have been the good man 
who is the reputed author of the epistle of that church to 
the church in Corinth, and who is made by various tradi- 
tions the first or second or third or fourth " Bishop of 
Rome." If it be, it will be seen that Hermas recognizes 
no such preeminence, but seems to assign him what in 
modern times would be called the corresponding-secre- 



54 The Historic Episcopate 

taryship of the church, "the organ by which it communi- 
cated with foreign churches" (Salmon), and puts him 
somewhat on a line with the deaconess Grapte, who had 
care of the widows and orphans. Hermas knows nothing 
of a monarchic episcopate in Rome. "The episcopal 
office, properly so called," says Dr. Lightfoot, "had not 
been constituted in the district in which the author lived." 
Quoting the statement of the Muratorian Fragment, 
which describes Pius as "sitting in the chair of the church 
of the city Rome" when Hermas wrote, Dr. Salmon adds, 
"But in Hermas the honor of 'a chair' is not confined to 
a single person." This is shown in another passage, in 
which the aged woman, "when we were alone, said to me, 
'Sit here.' I say to her, 'Lady, allow the elders {senior es) 
to be seated first.' 'Do what I tell you,' she says; 'be 
seated.'" Yet there were already in the church of Rome 
some who aspired to this monarchic distinction, and in 
another vision Hermas is bid to say to them: 

Xow therefore I speak to you who are over the church, and 
who love the foremost seats. Be not like the mixers of drugs, 
for they carry their drugs in boxes, but ye cam- your drugs and 
poison in your heart, and ye will not purge your hearts. . . . 
See to it, my sons, lest these dissensions of yours should rob 
you of true life. How are you to edify God's elect, when you 
keep not order yourselves? Admonish, therefore, one another, 
and be at peace among yourselves, that I also, standing before 
your Father, may render an account for you to the Lord. 

This passage seems to mean that harmful dissensions 
had arisen in the church, through the ambition of some 
presbyters to mount above the rest; and the prophet 
declares he is bidden to rebuke this desire as poisonous to 
their spiritual life. 

(3) The epistle of the church in Rome to the church in 
Corinth is the most valuable monument of the earliest 
Church literature. It is mentioned by Hegesippus and by 
Ireneus as written "in the episcopate of Clement," but 



The Presbyterian Fathers 55 

the authorship is not ascribed to him by either, and Diony- 
sius of Corinth (A. D. 170) is the first who ascribes it to 
him. It probably was his work, not as " Bishop of 
Rome," but as corresponding secretary of that church; 
and the individuality of its authorship is unmistakable. 
It also was accepted as part of the New Testament as 
late as the time of Clement of Alexandria. Origen thought 
this Clement was the one whom Paul mentioned to the 
Philippians as his coworker (Philippians iv: 3). If so, 
he certainly did not grasp the trend of the Apostle's 
teaching as to law and gospel, as indeed did none of the 
fathers of this second century. Yet the epistle resembles 
those of the New Testament in its theology of facts, its 
warmth of feeling toward our Lord, and even its vocabu- 
lary. 

The epistle forms a most interesting supplement to the 
Apostle Paul's two Epistles to the same church, and shows 
that to have been, in the second generation, the same 
over-busy and troublesome ecclesia that it was when Paul 
gathered it. As so frequently happened in Greek cities 
in earlier times, and had threatened in this church in the 
New Testament time, a sedition had sprung up among 
them, starting with a few, and then gathering head until 
almost the whole congregation was involved. The epistle 
appeals to the examples of Apostles and martyrs, to 
those of the Old Testament saints, and to our Lord's 
warnings, as incitements to unanimity, humility and 
obedience. It shows that the trouble in Corinth had 
taken the shape of attacks upon some of the presbyters 
of the church, made by persons of instability and inex- 
perience. There is no indication that any doctrinal 
controversy lay behind the quarrel, or that it was a sur- 
vival of the party-work which had threatened to tear the 
church to pieces in Paul's time. The quarrel was personal, 



56 The Historic Episcopate 

and the promoters of the dissension were animated by an 
exaggerated opinion of themselves; but the whole church is 
rebuked for allowing them to assume the leadership, to 
the displacement of the rightful authorities of the church: 

The church of God sojourning in Rome to the church of God 
sojourning in Corinth, elect, sanctified in the will of God, 
through our Lord Jesus Christ. Grace be multiplied unto you 
and peace from almighty God, through Jesus Christ. Because 
of sudden and successive disasters and accidents which have 
come upon us, we have turned our attention the more slowly, be- 
loved brethren, to those things which you asked of us, and to 
the unclean and unholy dissension, alien and strange to the 
elect of God, which a few rash and daring persons, inflamed to 
such a degree of insolence that your honorable and well-reputed 
name, worthy of general affection, is greatly blasphemed. 
For who that has dwelt among you has not honored your 
virtuous and firm faith? . . . For ye have done all things 
without respect of persons, and walked in the laws of God, being 
subject to your rulers, and bestowing fitting honor upon those 
who are your elders. You enjoined upon the younger, things 
moderate and honest; you instructed the women, to care for 
all things with a blameless, honest and chaste conscience, 
showing fit affection to their husbands. You taught them to 
keep within the rule of obedience, and to manage their household 
affairs honestly, being always discreet. Ye were all humble- 
minded, boastful in nothing, subject rather than subjecting 
others, giving more gladly than getting (Chapters I and II). 
All things should be done in order, which the Master has com- 
manded us to observe at the appointed times. The offerings 
and ministries to be observed, he did not command to be done 
heedlessly or out of order, but at the times and hours appointed. 
Where and through whom he wishes them to be observed, he 
himself has defined with most exalted purpose, in order that all 
things being done holily in his good pleasure, they may be 
acceptable to his will. Those, therefore, who make their 
offerings at the times appointed are accepted and blessed; for 
they who follow the laws of the Master do not go wrong. 
For to the high priest were assigned his own ministries, and to 
the priests was prescribed their own place, and upon the Levites 
were imposed their proper services. The layman is bound by 
lay injunctions. Each of you, brethren, in his own order, give 
thanks to God, in a good conscience, not transgressing the 
prescribed rule of his ministry, in honesty. Not in every place, 
brethren, are offered the continual sacrifices, or those growing 
out of vows, or those for sins and trespasses, but in Jerusalem 
alone; nor even there is offering made in any place whatever, 
but in the court of the Temple, at the altar, when the victim 
has been strictly examined by the high priest and the ministers 



The Presbyterian Fathers 57 

already mentioned. Whoever does anything contrary to what 
was agreeable to his will, receives the punishment of death. 
You see, brethren, the greater the knowledge we are thought 
worthy of, the greater the danger to which we are exposed 
(Chapters XL and XLI). 

The Apostles brought us the good tidings from the Lord 
Jesus Christ, Jesus Christ from God. Christ was sent from 
God, and the Apostles from Christ. Both therefore took place 
in right order from the will of God. Accepting the injunctions, 
and being fully persuaded through the resurrection of our Lord 
Jesus Christ, and confirmed in faith by the word of God, they 
went forth with the good tidings that the kingdom of God was 
about to come. Through regions and cities proclaiming this, 
they appointed their first fruits, after testing them in the spirit, 
to be bishops and deacons of those who should believe. Nor 
was this novel, for long before this there had been written of 
bishops and deacons. For thus somewhere saith the Scripture: 
"I will appoint their overseers [episkopous] in righteousness, 
and their ministers [diakonous] in faith" (Isaiah lx: 17). 
(Chapter XLII). 

And the Apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that 
there will be strife over the name of the episcopate [oversight]. 
For this reason, having received perfect foreknowledge, they 
appointed those before mentioned, and thereafter gave them a 
farther injunction, to the end that, if they fell asleep, other 
approved men should succeed to their ministry. Those, there- 
fore, who were appointed by them, or afterward by other ex- 
cellent men, with the consent of the whole Church, and who have 
ministered without reproach to the flock of Christ, with humil- 
ity, quietly and decorously, and have had a good report for a 
long time from all, — those, we think, not justly have been cast 
out of the service. For a sin, and not a small one, it will be 
for us, should we cast out of the oversight [episkopes] those who 
have brought the gifts blamelessly and holily. Blessed are the 
elders [presbuteroi] who have gone before, who have attained a 
fruitful and perfect departure, for they fear not lest some one 
may remove them from their appointed place. For we see 
that you have displaced some, who behaved rightly and blame- 
lessly, from the service honored by them (Chapter XLIV). 

. . . . Shameful, yea very shameful things we have to 
hear of you, and unworthy of the manner of life which is in 
Christ, that the church of the Corinthians, firmly established 
and ancient, because of one or two persons, revolts against its 
presbyters. And this report comes not only to us, but to those 
who are aliens to us, so that blasphemies are offered to the name 
of the Lord because of your folly, and danger is created for 
yourselves (Chapter XL VII). 

Who then among you is generous? Wlio is merciful? WTio 
is filled with love? Let him say, " If on my account faction and 
dissension and schisms have arisen, I will depart, I am gone 
whithersoever you wish; and what the whole assembly have 



58 The Historic Episcopate 

commanded, that alone I will do. Let the flock of Christ live 
in peace with its appointed presbyteral " He who does this will 
procure for himself j^icat ^lory in the Lord, and every place 
will welcome him (Chapter L1V). 

You, therefore, who have laid the foundation of faction, 
submit yourselves to the presbyters, and be instructed unto 
repentance, bending the knees of your hearts (Chapter LVII). 



These are the passages of this remarkable epistle which 
cast any light on the constitution and government of the 
churches at the time of its composition. As it speaks of 
the church in Corinth as having lost by death the presby- 
ters appointed by the Apostles, and also some of those who 
had been appointed by these in cooperation with the 
congregation of believers, it hardly can have been written 
before the beginning of the second century. It seems to 
look back to what the Church had suffered under Domi- 
tian, whose reign ended A. D. 96. 

It is noteworthy that it assumes the existence of the 
same church order in Rome as in Corinth, as it lays down 
general rules of duty and specific applications of these, 
as binding upon all Christians. It is therefore a witness 
not only to what existed in the large and busy church of 
Corinth, but also to what was to be found or not found in 
the still larger and more important church of Rome. 

In neither did there exist a monarchic episcopate, or 
a threefold ministry of bishop, presbyters and deacons. 
The double ministry of bishops and deacons is mentioned 
at one place, as established by the Apostles; and nothing 
is said of any alteration in this, either by the Apostles or 
by the church itself. In other passages the higher class 
of rulers are called presbyters repeatedly, and the duty 
of rendering them honor and lawful obedience is insisted 
upon. They are spoken of as exercising the oversight 
(episkope) in the church. It is distinctly stated that they 
were duly appointed to the presbyterate, so that they did 



The Presbyterian Fathers 59 

not possess it, as Dr. Hatch thinks, by virtue of their 
age and the respect paid to this. "Though Clement has 
occasion," says Dr. Lightfoot, "to speak of the ministry 
as an institution of the Apostles, he mentions only two 
orders, and is silent about the episcopal office. He still 
uses the word 'bishop' in the older sense, in which it 
occurs in the apostolic writings, as a synonym for ' presby- 
ter' (Philippians, p. 216). 

The trouble in the church of Corinth arose from the 
expulsion of certain presbyters from the oversight (epis- 
kope) of the church. The exhortation is to restore these 
to their ministry (leitourgia) by way of maintaining the 
apostolic order of the church. 

Clement, if he be the author of the epistle, as seems most 
probable, had known one, and possibly two, of the Apos- 
tles. No other writer, even of this early time, had such 
advantages for describing their arrangements for the 
future of the churches. He tells us that they directed the 
bishops and deacons they themselves had appointed to 
have others chosen to succeed them if they fell asleep. 
And although the men appointed by the Apostles had 
passed to the Church triumphant when this epistle was 
written, and even those they in turn had appointed must 
choose yet others to keep up the succession, yet no change 
had taken place from the plural episcopate to a monarchic 
episcopate in these two great churches. 

Dr. Liddon, indeed, would have us understand the 
language of Chapter XLIV, "that if they fell asleep, 
other approved men should succeed to their ministry/ ' 
as meaning the Apostles themselves, and not the presby- 
ter-bishops and deacons of the churches. He infers this 
from the use of the word "if" (ean) instead of "when." 
Were the Apostles less likely to die than were the bishops 
and deacons? He makes a distinction by inserting the 



60 The Historic Episcopate 

words " before the presbyter-bishops"; but for this he 
has no warrant. We must remember that in the first 
age of the Church there was a general expectation of the 
second advent, and that with regard to this the Apostle 
wrote to this church of Corinth: "We all shall not 
sleep, but we shall be changed" (1 Corinthians xv: 51). 
I know of no other scholar, Roman Catholic or Protestant, 
except Richard Rothe, who takes Dr. Liddon's view of the 
passage. Dr. Lightfoot rejects it. Bishop Gore, who is 
sufficiently zealous for episcopacy, says that "it is quite 
true that in Clement's epistle presbyters are called 
bishops, and that there is no local authority in the church 
at Corinth above the presbyters. Clement's language 
about submission to them postulates this. It may also 
be acknowledged that it is an unwarrantable hypothesis 
that the see of the chief pastor was vacant when 
Clement wrote." 1 

Roman Catholic scholars have a very lively interest 
in the interpretation of this epistle. If there was no 
monarchic bishop in Rome in the first decade of the 
second century, what becomes of that succession to Saint 
Peter, on which so much rests in their system? In view 
of this Konrad Thonissen in 1841 wrote a dissertation 
on The Existence of a Dogmatic Difference of the Episcopate 
from the Presbyterate Provable from the Scriptures and 
the Fathers. 2 But he rests his case on the language 
(a) of Chapters I and XXI, where "rulers" and "elders" 
are mentioned as two separate classes ; and on (6) Chapter 
XL, where "high priests," "priests" and "Levites" are 
enumerated as having each their own duties to perform. 

1 The Church and the Ministry, p. 322. Dr. Liddon's statement is from a 
sermon preached at the consecration of two English bishops. 

2 Zwei historisch-theologische Abhandlungen: Ueber die Authenticity und 
Integritat des ersten Brief e des Clemens von Rom an die Corinthien: — und Ueber dot 
Erweisbarkeit eines dopmatischen unterschieds des Episkopats vom Presbyteriate , 
mit Riicksicht auf die heiligen Schriften und den Vatern der Vier ersten Jahrhund- 
erten. Von Konrad Thonissen. Trier, 1841. 



The Presbyterian Fathers 61 

(a) Any attentive reader of Chapters I and XXI will 
see that the epistle is not speaking here of church govern- 
ment, but of faithfulness in the relative duties of the 
Christian life; that the rulers in question are the civil 
authorities and magistrates; and that the elders are not 
the occupants of an office in the church, but men of ad- 
vanced age, to whom reverence naturally is due. In 
both passages the mention of " elders" is followed imme- 
diately by a mention of " young" men (neous). 

(b) The enumeration of high priests, priests and Levites 
in Chapter XL is part of an extensive illustration of 
Christian duty from the Old Testament, which makes up 
the greater part of the epistle. Of the chapters I have not 
quoted, thirty-eight are taken up, more or less, with 
quotations from the Old Testament, or the narration of 
the lives of the Hebrew saints, as bearing on the troubles 
in the church of Corinth, while only eight are occupied 
mainly with the New Testament. For the Christians of 
that day the Old Testament was still par excellence the 
Scripture. So the mention of three orders in the service 
of the Jewish Temple implies no such triplicity in the Chris- 
tian ministry. In two sentences farther on similar use 
is made of the fact that the Old Testament offerings could 
be made only in Jerusalem, and at the altar in the court 
of the Temple; but no one would infer that Christians 
have but one place on earth for the acts of their worship. 

Monsignor Duchesne finds it necessary to take a different 
ground in maintaining an apostolic succession which shall 
connect the modern Roman Catholic hierarchy with the 
rulers of the church in apostolic and sub-apostolic times. 
He elevates the presbytery of the early church into a 
"college of bishops," and says that " whether they had 
one bishop at their head, or whether they had a college 
of several, the episcopate still carried on the apostolic 



6a The Historic Episcopate 

succession." "If the system of government by a single 
bishop represents in some respects a later stage of the 
hierarchy, it was not so unknown in primitive clays as it 
might appear" {Early History of the Christian Church, 
pp. 66-67). 

(4) Annexed to every MS. of the epistle to the church 
in Corinth is what has been called "the Second Epistle of 
Clement." It cannot have been written by Clement of 
Rome, and it is not an epistle but a homily, written to be 
read to a church. Dr. Lightfoot thinks it was the church 
of Corinth, and Dr. Harnack that of Rome. The theology 
of the author harmonizes with the writers of the first half 
of the second century; and so do his references to church 
order. It belongs to the period before the rise of the 
monarchic episcopate, for its references are to the pres- 
byters as having spiritual responsibility for the congre- 
gation: 

Let us not think to give heed and believe only now, while we 
are admonished by the presbyters, but likewise when we have 
gone home, let us remember the commandments of the Lord. 

The unbelievers shall behold his glory and his power, and 
they shall be amazed when they see the kingdom of the world 
given to Jesus, saying, "Woe unto us, for thou wast, and we 
knew it not and believed not, and we obeyed not the presbyters 
when they told us of our salvation." 

This homily has its value as showing that Dr. Hatch's 
theory that the presbyters took no part in preaching is not 
historic. 

(5) The epistle of Polycarp of Smyrna to the church in 
Philippi is an interesting supplement to the great Apostle's 
epistle to the same church. Polycarp is one of the noblest 
figures in the history of the sub-apostolic Church, and is 
said by Ireneus, who in early youth knew him, to have 
been a disciple of the Apostle John, and "by the Apostles 
appointed in Asia bishop in the church in Smyrna." 



The Presbyterian Fathers 63 

In the Epistle of the Church Sojourning in Smyrna to the 
Church Sojourning in Philomelium, describing his martyr- 
dom, Polycarp is mentioned but once by any title: "Bishop 
of the Catholic Church in Smyrna." The phrase "Cath- 
olic church" suggests an interpolation, as that was evoked 
by the controversies of a later age. Mr. F. C. Conybeare, 
in his Monuments of Early Christianity (p. 4), points out 
that in the Armenian translation of Eusebius — who 
quotes the letter at length — the phrase is not found. 
The epistle addressed to Polycarp in the Ignatian series 
designates him as "Bishop of the Church of the Smyr- 
naeans." None of these make him "the bishop" of that 
church, and a presbyter-bishop of it he certainly was. 
We have three "traditions" as to the succession of (mon- 
archic) bishops in that church. Pseudo-Hippolytus 
gives us Apelles (probably Ampeles), as first. That in 
The Constitutions of the Holy Apostles specifies (1) Ariston 
I; (2) Strataias, son of Lois; (3) Ariston II. That pre- 
served by Suidas (tenth century) begins with Bucolus. 
None of them mentions Polycarp. 

Of the fourteen chapters found in the old Latin transla- 
tion, only the first nine of the epistle have been preserved 
in Greek. 

Polycarp and the presbyters who are with him, to the church 
of God sojourning in Philippi, mercy and peace from almighty 
God and the Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour, be multiplied unto 
you. 

I rejoiced greatly with you in our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye 
received the patterns of true love, and brought on their way, as 
belongs to you, those who were bound in chains worthy of 
saints, which are the crowns of those who are truly chosen of 
God and our Lord ; and that the firm root of your faith, preached 
from old times, remains until now, and bears fruit to our Lord 
Jesus Christ. . . . (Chapter I.) 

I have not taken upon myself, brethren, that I write to you 
these things concerning righteousness, but as you yourselves 
first requested it. For neither I nor anyone like me can attain 
to the wisdom of the blessed and renowned Paul, who, coming 



64 The Historic Episcopate 

among you, in the presence of the men of that day, taught 
exactly and firmly the word of truth; and who, departing from 
you, wrote to you an epistle, if you look into which, you can be 
built up in the faith which has been given you (Chapter III;. 

Knowing that "God is not mocked," we ought to walk 
worthy of his command and judgment. Likewise the deacons 
blameless in the presence of his righteousness, as the ministers 
[diakonoi] of God and of Christ, and not of men; not slanderers, 
nor double-tongued, free from covetousness, temperate in all 
things, heedful, walking according to the truth of the Lord, 
who became the minister [diakonos] of all. . . . Likewise 
let the young men be blameless in all things, above all careful 
for chastity, bridling themselves back from all evil. For it is 
a good thing to be cut off from the desires of this world. . . . 
It is necessary therefore that we withhold ourselves from all 
these things, being subject to the presbyters and deacons as 
to God and Christ (Chapter V). 

And let the presbyters be compassionate, merciful to all, 
reclaiming the wandering [sheep], looking after all who are 
weak, not neglecting the widow or the orphan or the poor man, 
. . . abstaining from all wrath, from respect of persons, 
from unjust judgment; far removed from all love of money; 
not swift to believe against any; not severe in judgment, as 
knowing that we all are debtors of sin (Chapter VI). 

I exhort you all, therefore, to obey the law of righteousness, 
and practice all patience, which also ye saw with your eyes, not 
only in the blessed Ignatius and Zosimos and Rufus, but also 
in others from among yourselves, and in Paul himself and the 
rest of the Apostles; being persuaded that these all did not run 
in vain, but in faith and righteousness, and that they are at the 
place due them with the Lord, with whom also they suffered 
(Chapter IX). 

I am very sorry for Valens, who was once made a presbyter 
among you, that he so misknew the place which was given to 
him. I admonish you, therefore, to abstain from avarice, and 
be chaste and true. Abstain from all evil. How shall he, who 
is not able to govern himself in these things, prescribe this to 
another? ... I, however, have neither perceived nor 
heard of any such thing in you, among whom the blessed Paul 
labored, who are [mentioned] in the beginning of his Epistle. 
For he boasts of you in all the churches, which then alone 
knew God; but we did not yet know him. Truly sorry, then, 
am I for him and for his wife, and may God give them a true 
repentance. Be ye therefore moderate in this, and "consider 
not such as enemies," but recall them as suffering and erring 
members, that ye may save your whole body (Chapter XII). 

Both you and Ignatius have written to me that, if anyone 
should happen to set out for Syria, he should carry thither 
your letters also; and this I will do if I find a convenient 
opportunity, either I myself, or through some one else, whom I 
will send as a messenger for you also. The epistles of Ignatius, 



The Presbyterian Fathers 65 

which he sent to me, and all the others we have, I have sent to 
you, as you bade me; and these indeed we subjoin to this 
epistle. From these you will be able to derive much fruit. 
For they contain faith and patience and all edification re- 
lating to our Lord. And what ye know more certainly of 
Ignatius himself, and of those who are with him, make known 
to us (Chapter XIII). 



The ninth and twelfth chapters are quoted here be- 
cause of their bearing on the authenticity of the Ignatian 
epistles. 

From the fifth and sixth chapters we learn what was 
the church order in Philippi at the time Polycarp wrote. 
Here, as in Rome and Corinth, we find no trace of a three- 
fold ministry in the church, made such by the erection 
of a monarchic bishop above the presbyter-bishops of the 
apostolic period. As Paul called the officers of this 
church " bishops and deacons" (Philippians i: 1), so 
Polycarp calls them " presbyters and deacons." Had 
there been a single bishop over the church, would he have 
been ignored in the directions given as to the case of 
Valens? Why the omission? 

It has been pleaded that the church of Philippi was a 
vacant see at this time. Why, then, does Polycarp ex- 
press no sympathy with the church in this bereavement, 
and give no directions as to the steps to be taken in the 
choice of a fit man for the place? Why has he nothing 
to say of their duties toward their bishop when they got 
one? Bunsen, who was not unfriendly to the Episco- 
palian theory of early church history, bluntly says, 
"The Philippians he is addressing are Presbyterians." 1 

Dr. Lightfoot thinks that the church in Philippi lingered 
behind the development of church order general in the 
churches of Asia, and clung to an antiquated and unsuit- 
able form of church government, after those churches had 

1 Hippolytus and His Age (second edition), i, 226. 

5 



66 The Historic Episcopate 

adopted the monarchic episcopate with apostolic sanction. 1 
Yet there was not a church in the world better placed 
for learning what was the general movement of affairs in 
the churches of Asia on the one hand, and those of Greece 
and Italy on the other. It was animated, as both Paul 
and Polycarp show us, by a lively interest in the general 
concerns of the kingdom of Christ. It was the church 
which earned the Apostle's praise for its large-heartedness, 
and was especially enjoined by him to go on to perfection. 
Yet in Dr. Lightfoot's general scheme of things, it figures 
as a church lagging behind its contemporaries, of whose 
doings it well knew. And Polycarp, now called "the 
Bishop of Smyrna," writes to them with full knowledge of 
what was necessary to the well-being of a church, if not 
to its very being, and has not a word of either reproof 
or suggestion on the subject. 

The fact is that Polycarp was as Presbyterian as 
Bunsen finds those to whom Polycarp wrote. His letter 
implies that the order he describes in Philippi was that of 
the churches generally — was that of the church in Smyrna, 
of which he was a presbyter-bishop. Somewhat later in 
this second century a member of the church in Smyrna, 
called Xoetus, began to spread the notion that the Fathe: 
and the Son are so identical that the sufferings of Christ 
are those of the Father also. Hippolytus of Rome, 
evidently following some early account of this, says : 

The blessed presbyters having heard this, calling him before 
the church, questioned him. But he denied it, saying at first 
that he did not think so. But afterwards, lurking among some 
and procuring for himself those who shared his wanderings, he 
wished to set up the dogma as correct. The blessed presbyters, 
having again called him before them, refuted him. But he 
withstood them, saying ''What evil am I doing in glorifying 
Christ?" And the presbyters answered him: "We also know 

1 Essays on the Work Entitled ''Supernatural Religion" (London, 1889), pp. 
107-108. 



The Presbyterian Fathers 67 

in truth one God; we know Christ; we know the Son suffering 
as he Buffered, dying as he died, and rising again the third day, 
and being at the right hand of the Father, and coming to judge 
the quick and the dead. And these things which we have 
learned, we say." Then, having refuted him, they cast him 
out of the church. And he was carried to such a pitch of pride 
that he set up a school. 1 

Some church historians transfer this account to Rome, 
but with no warrant for this in the text of Hippolytus, 
who seems elsewhere to say that Noetus never went to 
Rome, and that his heresy was carried thither by his 
disciple Epigonus (circ. A. D. 200). In any case it is 
not the order of procedure which would have been fol- 
lowed in a church governed by a monarchic bishop. 
Nor is it without parallels. Dr. Salmon tells us that in 
the account "which Epiphanius, evidently drawing from 
an older writer, gives us of the intercourse of Marcion 
with the church of Rome [after A. D. 140], the dealings 
of Marcion are represented as being entirely with the 
Roman presbyters; and it may be doubted if Epiphanius 
found in his authority the solution which he suggests, 
that at that time the see was vacant." 2 

A third instance of the defence of a church by its pres- 
byters against the inroads of error is found in the Galatian 
church of Ancyra. It was in that Asian region where 
Dr. Lightfoot believes monarchic episcopacy to have been 
the established order at the beginning of the second cen- 
tury. A writer quoted anonymously by Eusebius, and 
called Rhodon by Jerome, explains his writing against 
Montanism on this wise: 

Having been lately at Ancyra of Galatia, I learned that the 
church of that place was greatly agitated by this new 
"prophecy," as they call it, but much rather, as shall be shown, 
false prophecy. As I was able and by help of the Lord, we dis- 

1 Migne's Patrologie Grecque-Latine, Tome x, 803-20. 

1 Introduction to the New Testament, p. 520, n. Migne's Patrologie Grecque- 
Latine, Tome xli, 696. 



68 The Historic Episcopate 

coursed for several days in the church, both about these very 
things, and whatever else was brought forward; so that the 
church was made glad and confirmed in the truth, but its ad- 
versaries were put to flight and its opponents grieved. And 
the elders of the church asked me to leave some memorial of 
what was said in discourse against the opponents of the truth, 
— Zoticus Otrenus, our fellow-presbyter being also present — 
we did not do this, but we promised to write from hence, and, 
the Lord assisting, to send it to them with urgency. 

Rhodon also speaks of "men approved and bishops, 
Zoticus of the village of Comana and Julianus of Apamea, 
whom Themiso and his followers muzzled, and did not 
allow the false and seductive spirit to be refuted by them." 
That is, the Montanists would not allow them to exorcise 
their prophets as demoniacs. 1 

In all three cases, it will be observed, the presbyters of 
the churches of Smyrna, Rome and Ancyra served as a 
breakwater to keep false teaching out of the churches, 
without recourse to that monarchic episcopate which 
Dr. Lightfoot thought necessary for this end. On the 
other hand, the church of Thyatira, one of the seven 
which the Apostle John is supposed to have furnished with 
the safeguard of a bishop (or " angel"), was completely 
effaced by the spread of Montanism (Epiphanius, li: 33). 

(6) The exact date of the old Syriac version of the 
Bible, which is called the Peschitto (" simple"), is in dis- 
pute. It was the official version of the very ancient 
church of Syria, and was used by all Christian sects of 
that province. Ephraim Syrus in the fourth century 
found some of its terms obscure and antiquated. Jacob 
of Edessa, in the seventh century, records a tradition 
that it dates back to the early age of the Church. The 
version of the Gospels it contains is probably younger than 
the two discovered by Mr. William Cureton and Mrs. 
Agnes Smith Lewis. As Mr. F. Crawford Burkitt, in 

1 Eusebii Historia Ecclesiastica, Lib. V, Cap. 16. 



The Presbyterian Fathers 69 

his Early Eastern Christianity (1904), shows, this probably 
was due to the primitive use of the combined Gospels 
(diatessaron) of Tatian in the early Syrian church. When 
Rabula of Edessa, in the fifth century, substituted the 
separate Gospels for this harmony, he based the text upon 
the versions recently discovered, but conformed it to the 
Greek text accepted at Antioch. 

The question of the antiquity of the Old Testament 
and of the Acts and Pauline Epistles in the Peschitto 
stands apart from the problem presented by the Gospels. 
Mr. Burkitt thinks the former may have been made even 
before the Christian era for Jewish use; the date of the 
latter he leaves an open question. That it was earlier 
than the second half of the second century seems to be 
proved by the fact that its terminology belongs to the 
period before the evolution of the monarchic episcopate. 
Mrs. Margaret Gibson, the sister and coworker of Mrs. 
Lewis, to whom I submitted this point, writes to me as 
follows : 

Your letter has called my attention to a fact of which I was 
not previously aware. I have looked at all the passages in the 
Peschitto, in which the words "bishop" or "bishops" are to be 
found, and it is just as you say. In Philippians i: 1 the word 
is Casheesha, "elders." In 1 Timothy iii: 1 it is "the office of 
the Casheeshouta," "eldership." In 1 Timothy iii: 2 and in 
Titus i: 7 it is Casheesha. In 1 Peter ii: 25 there is a different 
word, Sa'oura, which means an "agent" or "factor." I next 
looked up every passage in which "elders" occurs, and found the 
word to be invariably Casheesha. This is an additional and 
very strong argument for Presbyterianism. The Syrians 
evidently thought episkopos and presbuteros to be synonymous. 
I have looked at the old Arabic version of the Acts and the 
Catholic Epistles, which I edited from a Sinai codex, and I 
find that in 1 Peter ii: 25 the word for "bishop" is translated 
Mudabbir, which means "agent" or "factor," evidently a 
rendering of the Peschitto Sa'oura. 

(7) About the year A. D. 148 Justin Martyr addressed 
his first Apology for the Christians to the Emperor Anto- 



70 The Historic Episcopate 

ninus Pius. He was a native of Samaria, but a heathen by 
birth and education, and came to the knowledge of the 
gospel after a search for the truth through the schools of 
philosophy. He was converted in the east, possibly at 
Ephesus; but he came westward to Rome, where he be- 
came a sort of lay preacher in the philosophic schools, 
matching his wits against the popular teachers of the day, 
in defence of Christianity as an intelligible view of the 
world and of life. He was familiar with Christian usages 
of both east and west, but especially with Rome, which he 
had in mind when he addressed the emperor as a brother 
philosopher in defence of his brother Christians. As 
abominable lies had been told about the conduct of the 
Christian assemblies, he is particular to describe their 
object and their manner to the emperor. After describ- 
ing the baptism of a convert, he proceeds : 

But we, after thus purifying him who has been persuaded and 
has given his assent, lead him to those who are called brethren, 
where they are assembled to make common prayers both for 
themselves and for him who has been enlightened, and for all 
others everywhere, with fervency, that we, who have learnt 
the truth, may be accounted worthy to be found good citizens 
and keepers of the commandments; that we may be saved with 
the everlasting salvation. We greet one another with a kiss, 
when we have ceased from prayers. Thereafter is brought to 
the president of the brethren bread and a cup of water and wine; 
and he, taking it, offers up praise and glory to the Father of 
all, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and 
makes thanksgiving at length for our being counted worthy 
of these things by him. And when he has finished the prayers 
and the thanksgiving, all the people present give their assent 
saying, "Amen." The "Amen" in the Hebrew tongue means 
"So be it." And the president having finished the thanksgiving, 
and all the people having expressed their assent, those who are 
called deacons among us give to each of those who are present 
a share of the bread and wine and water of the thanksgiving, 
and carry them to those who are not present (Chapter LXV). 
. . . And on the day which is called Sun-day, there is a 
meeting of all of us who are living in cities or rural districts; 
and the memoirs of the Apostles or the writings of the prophets 
are read as long as time allows. And when the reader has 
ceased, the president by a discourse admonishes and exhorts 



The Presbyterian Fathers 71 

to the imitation of these excellent things. Thereupon we rise 
together and all offer our prayers; and, as I said before, when we 
have ceased from prayers, bread is brought and wine and water, 
and the president in like manner offers up prayers and thanks- 
giving, according to his strength, and the people give assent, 
saying "Amen." And the distribution and reception of what 
has been thanked for, occurs to each, and their share is sent to 
those who are not present, through the deacons. Of those who 
are prosperous and willing, each according to his purpose gives, 
and what is collected is deposited with the president. And 
he it is that succors orphans and widows, and those who are in 
want through sickness or other cause, and those who are in 
bonds, and the sojourners who are strangers, and in a w r ord 
he is provider for all w r ho are in need (Chapter LXVII). 

Justin, of course, is avoiding technical terms and un- 
necessary details in addressing the emperor. He calls 
the elders of the church "the brethren," and gives to the 
one of them who has charge of the weekly worship no 
more than the title given by Paul in writing to Timothy. 
He is the pro-estos, the elder who presides well (1 Timothy 
v: 17), not over the elders but the meetings of the church. 

It will be seen that the president already has obtained 
control of the weekly offertory, which in apostolic times 
fell to the elders collectively. Thus he approaches the 
conception of the functions of a bishop offered us by Dr. 
Hatch, who compares him to the treasurer of a modern 
beneficial society. It is noteworthy that Justin seems to 
make the eucharist precede the offertory, whereas in the 
earliest time the offertory came first, was the central act 
of worship, and furnished the materials of both the eu- 
charist and the agape (love-feast). 

It is also noteworthy that Justin implies the meeting of 
the entire congregation of the Roman Christians in one 
place for the observance of social worship. It must have 
been a large body, as in the next century we read of its 
forty-six presbyters and seven deacons, the latter number 
being the limit set for this and every church, as there were 
seven in the mother church of Jerusalem (Acts vi: 3; 



72 The Historic Episcopate 

xxi: 8); and as seven was one of the mystic numbers of 
Scripture (Proverbs xxiv: 16; Revelation i: 4; xv: 7; 
etc.). Yet the whole church met in a common celebra- 
tion of the eucharist every Sunday. 

Justin is the last of our four witnesses as to the pres- 
byterial character of the church order in Rome during the 
first half of the second century. The most authentic 
account of its origin, as Dr. Sanday points out in his 
Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (1895), is that 
given by Ambrosiaster (probably the Presbyter Isaac 
of Rome), who shows a familiarity with Roman condi- 
tions which suggests a Roman nativity. He says the 
church owed its foundation to no Apostle, but was origi- 
nally on the footing of a Jewish synagogue, keeping the 
law but accepting the Messiahship of Jesus. It was to 
this church that the Apostle wrote his great Epistle, by 
his silence indicating that no Apostle had visited it, and 
finding no fault with the church order, which was so desti- 
tute of apostolic succession. Nor have we any contem- 
porary evidence of a change made in it during the lifetime 
of the Apostles, or the generation which succeeded them. 
That the monarchic bishop does not emerge in its early 
history, is admitted by Episcopalian divines of judgment 
and erudition. 

"In fact it is remarkable," says Dr. George Salmon, 
"how all through the first two centuries the importance 
of the Bishop of Rome is merged in the importance of his 
church. Dionysius of Corinth writes to the church of 
Rome, not to Soter, its bishop. Ignatius, when on his 
way to suffer at the wild beast shows at Rome, writes to 
deprecate intercession likely to be made there for his 
release; and he addresses the church, not the bishop. 
And it is curious that from this writer, who is accounted 
the strongest witness for episcopacy in early times, we 



The Presbyterian Fathers 73 

could not discover that there was any bishop in Rome. 
Xu mention is made of the Bishop of Rome in the Shepherd 
of Hernias. And in the account which Epiphanius, evi- 
dently drawing from an older writer, gives of the inter- 
course of Marcion with the church of Rome, the dealings 
of Marcion are represented as being entirely with the 
Roman presbyters; and it may be doubted whether 
Epiphanius found in his authority the solution which he 
suggests, that at that time the see was vacant. At the 
very end of the century, when Victor attempted to en- 
force uniformity of Easter observance, it was still in the 
name of his church that he wrote, asking that provincial 
councils should be assembled in order to report upon the 
matter. This is evident by the plural exiosate in the 
reply of Poly crates." 1 

Victor's attempt to coerce the Asiatic churches into 
conformity with the church of Rome in the observance 
of Easter called forth a remarkable protest from Ireneus, 
Bishop of Lyons, in which he says: "The presbyters pre- 
ceding Soter in the government of the church which thou 
dost now rule — I mean Anicetus and Pius, Hygenus and 
Telesphorus, and Sixtus — did neither themselves observe 
it. nor allowed this to those who were with them." Canon 
Robert Bruce remarks on this: " Although at the date of 
his writing the letter (A. D. 190-194) the episcopate must 
have become as distinct at least from the presbyterate 
in Europe as it had become in Asia in the days of Igna- 
tius, yet there is no trace in the letter that it had become 
so in the days of Anicetus at Rome (A. D. 150) . 
. . Ireneus, though he writes as a bishop to the Bishop 
of Rome, speaks of no bishop, only of presbyters, in 
Rome in the days of Anicetus; as if there were no higher 

1 Introduction to the New Testament, pp. 519-520, note. Migne'a Patrologxe 
Grecque-Latine, Tome xli, 696 (Epiphanius, Tome I). 



74 The Historic Episcopate 

officer in question there. The presbyters, moreover, are 
spoken of in terms which imply that the exercise of dis- 
cipline belonged to them." 1 

"The later Roman theory," says Dr. Lightfoot, "sup- 
poses that the Church of Rome derives all its authority 
from the Bishop of Rome as the successor of St. Peter. 
History inverts the relation, and shows that, as a matter 
of fact, the power of the Bishop of Rome was built upon 
the power of the Church of Rome. ... A very few 
years later than the date of Clement's letter Ignatius 
writes to Rome. He is a stanch advocate of episcopacy. 
Of his six remaining letters one is addressed to a bishop 
as a bishop, and the other five all enforce the duty of the 
churches whom he addresses to their respective bishops; 
yet in the letter to the Church of Rome there is not the 
faintest allusion to the episcopal office from first to last." 2 

Dr. Hatch also notes that Ireneus, "in a formal letter 
to the head of the Roman church, in which, from the 
circumstances of the case, he would be least likely to 
omit any form of either right or courtesy, speaks of his 
predecessors by name as 'presbyters';" and that "so 
late as the third century, the extant epitaphs of Roman 
bishops do not give the title of episcojms"* 

1 Apostolic Order and Unity (Edinburgh, 1903), p. 117. 

2 The Apostolic Fathers, i, 254. 

3 The Organization of the Early Christian Churches, p. 88 and note. 



CHAPTER III 

The Ignatian Epistles 

In the previous chapter I have shown that the un- 
challenged ecclesiastical writers of the period from the 
close of the age of the Apostles to the middle of the second 
century are harmonious in representing the churches of 
that time as governed by a plurality of presbyter-bishops. 
To this we have seven witnesses from various parts of the 
Church, from Syria to Rome, not excepting pro-consular 
Asia. And their direct testimony is corroborated by 
recorded occurrences in the churches of this period, in 
which the aggressions of heretical teachers were resisted 
by the presbyters of those churches. And I have shown 
that we have the authority of learned Anglicans for our 
Presbyterian interpretation of the facts in every case but 
one. This includes Drs. Lightfoot, Sanday, Salmon, 
Gore and Hatch, as also their German friends, Bunsen 
and Harnack. 

If this accumulation of evidence is to be set aside by 
the word of a single writer, we surely have the right to 
demand that he shall be one of whose date and writings 
we are altogether sure, and to whose authority, as bringing 
light to this period, there shall attach not the shadow of a 
doubt. This certainly is very far from being true of the 
epistles ascribed to Ignatius of Antioch, 1 on whose author- 

1 Jean Daill6: De Scriptis quae sub Dionysii Areopagitce et Ignatii Antiocheni 
Nominibus Circumferuntur (Geneva, 1666). Bp. John Pearson: Vindiciae 
Epi8tolarum S. Ignatii. Editio Nova Annotationibus et Prcefatione ad hodiernum 
Controversies Statum Accommodata [by Dr. Edward Churton]. II vols. (Ox- 
ford, 1852.) F. C. Baur: Die Ignatianischen Briefe und ihr neuster Kritiker. Eine 

75 



76 The Historic Episcopate 

ity we are asked to believe that the plurality of presbyter- 
bishops had been superseded before A. D. 117 in the 
churches of Ephesus, Philadelphia, Tralles, Magnesia and 
Smyrna, by the rise of a monarchic episcopate, which was 
"so firmly rooted, so exalted above all other offices, and 
so completely beyond dispute" (Harnack) as to make an- 
other thing of those churches from what all other writers 
of the time lead us to expect. 

Eusebius (A. D. 325) says that Ignatius was the second 
in succession to Peter in the church of Antioch, that he 
was sent to Rome to be thrown to the wild beasts, and 
that on his way through Asia he wrote seven epistles — 
three from Smyrna to the churches in Ephesus, Magnesia 
and Tralles, and from other points to the churches in 
Rome, in Smyrna, and in Philadelphia, and one to Poly- 
carp. His message to the churches was that they should 
stand fast in the faith, keep themselves from heretical 
contagion, and cling to the apostolic traditions. In his 
Chronicle he says that this occurred in the reign of Trajan 
(A. D. 98-117). 

In 1557 Valentin Pacaeus published in Greek twelve 
epistles bearing the name of Ignatius of Antioch. Their 
genuineness was at once called in question by Calvin and 
other good scholars, but they were treated as an authority 
for primitive episcopacy by Drs. Whitgift, Hooker, An- 
drews, Hall and others who favored that form of govern- 
ment. Attempts were made to separate the genuine 
from the spurious in this collection. Archbishop Ussher 
discovered, and in 1644 published, a Latin version of a 

Streitschrift gegen Herrn Bunsen (Tubingen, 1848). William Cureton: Corpus 
Ignatianum; A Complete Collection of the Ignatian Epistles, Genuine, Interpolated, 
and Spurious; together with numerous Extracts from them, as Quoted by Ecclesias- 
tical Writers down to the Tenth Century; in Syriac, Greek, and Latin: An English 
Translation of the Syriac Text, copious Notes, and Introduction (London, 1849). 
Dr. J. B. Lightfoot: The Apostolic Fathers, second edition (London, 1889-1890). 
Canon Travers Smith: Ignatius, in Smith and W ace's Dictionary of Christian 
Biography (London, 1882). Adolph Harnack: Die Geachichte der aUchritUichen 
Litteratur bis Eusebius (Leipzig, 1893-1897). 



The Jgnctian Epistles 77 

briefer recension of eleven epistles, and expressed the 
hope that the original Greek of this would be discovered. 
In 164b' Isaac V088IU8 printed from a manuscript owned 
by the Grand Duke of Tuscany, and dating back to the 
eleventh century, the shorter Greek text, for which Ussher 
was looking. This included six of the seven epistles 
ribod to Ignatius by Eusebius, and two generally re- 
garded as spurious. Thierri Ruinart in 1689 added the 
epistle to the Romans from a martyrology of Ignatius, 
and thus completed the seven. 

By this, the shorter Greek recension, Ussher, Pearson 
and other Anglican and Roman Catholic authors have 
stood ever since the publication. But in 1845 William 
Cureton published a still shorter Syriac recension, in- 
cluding the epistles to the Romans, the Ephesians and 
Polycarp of Smyrna, with considerable omissions from two 
of the three, and an insertion of two chapters in the 
Romans, which are found in the Greek of the epistle to the 
Trallians. Mr. Cureton maintained that his discovery 
was the recover}' of the real Ignatius, whose epistles had 
been inflated and interpolated not only in the longer 
recension published by Pacseus. but in the shorter brought 
to light by Vossius. A curious confirmation of this view 
is the fact that even,' quotation made from Ignatius by 
the fathers, from Ireneus to Chrysostom, including the 
latter's long panegyric on the martyr, is to be found in 
the narrow range of the Syriac. At first Mr. Cureton's 
discovery was hailed by many as being all that he claimed 
for it, and men of such different "views of early Church 
history as Bunsen, Lipsius, Ritschl and Volkmar accepted 
this as the true Ignatius, while Baur rejected it equally 
with the rest. More recently it has lost ground, Lipsius 
returning to the Vossian Greek, and Volkmar resuming 
his position beside Baur. This has been due mainly to 



7 8 The Historic Episcopate 

Petermann's discovery of a complete Armenian version 
of the shorter Greek recension made from a Syriac original, 
from which in turn the Curetonian text is said to be an 
abridgment. 

From their appearance to the present the genuineness of 
these epistles of the shorter recension has been impugned 
and defended with much erudition and acumen by Con- 
tinental and British scholars. The problem they present 
is, as Dr. Lightfoot says, "one of the most perplexing 
which confronts the student of earlier Christian history." 
Half a century ago they found few defenders, but just at 
present they are come into credit again with Church 
historians, partly through the scholarly labors of Theodore 
Zahn 1 and Dr. J. B. Lightfoot, and partly through the 
swing of the pendulum away from the historical skep- 
ticism of the Tubingen school of F. C. Baur and his con- 
sorts. "In the criticism of the sources of Christianity," 
says Dr. Adolph Harnack, "we are, without doubt, em- 
barked in a retrograde movement toward tradition." 
"The chronological framew r ork, in w T hich tradition has 
arranged the documents from the Pauline Epistles down 
to Ireneus, is in all main points right, 2 and compels the 
historian to disregard all hypotheses in reference to the 
historical sequence of things, which deny this frame- 
work." 

The date of Ignatius is one of the uncertain elements 
of the problem. Origen, who died seventy-seven years 



1 Ignatius von Antioch (Leipzig, 1873). 

2 It is worth while to consider what this broad statement involves. Between 
Paul and Ireneus the following documents can plead orthodox tradition for 
their place in that "framework": The Gospel of the Hebrews, the Gospel of 
Peter, the Gospel of Thomas, the Protevangelium of James, the Acts of Pilate, 
the Epistle of Barnabas, seven uncanonical Pauline Epistles, the preaching of 
Peter, the Teaching of the Apostles, the Apocalypse of Peter, the Sibylline Books, 
the Second Epistle of Clement of Rome, his two Epistles to the Apostle James, 
his two Epistles on Virginity, his Apostolical Constitutions, seven spurious 
writings ascribed to Justin Martyr, and others. Church history constructed 
on the framework of early tradition will be a new thing. 



The Ignatian Epistles 79 

after Trajan, says that Ignatius was the second bishop of 
Antioch after the Apostle Peter. Eusebius is the first 
who mentions Evodius as his predecessor, and the 
Apostolical Constitutions say that he was ordained by 
Peter, but Ignatius by Paul. Athanasius and Chrysostom 
speak as if Ignatius dated from the apostolic age, without 
any predecessor. As tradition had arranged a twenty-five 
years' episcopate for Peter in Rome, he had to be got 
thither in time to die with Paul in the Neronian persecu- 
tion (A. D. 67). So his ordination of Evodius must be 
got over by the year 42, which is rather an early date for a 
monarchic Bishop of Antioch, and seventy-five years be- 
fore the death of Trajan. Dr. Salmon says: "We have 
no data for fixing the time of his accession; but we may 
safely say that it was considerably later than the year 42." 
No less absurd is it to assign to Peter the arrangement of 
the affairs of the ecclesia of Antioch, in the face of all 
that we know of it from the Acts of the Apostles. His 
relations with it were always external, to say the least, 
and his intrusion there would have been a breach of the 
covenant which he and the other "pillar Apostles " made 
with Paul (Galatians ii: 9). 

The Ignatian epistles themselves do not help us out 
of the chronological difficulty. They mention no emperor 
or any other civil ruler, and indeed no person otherwise 
known to history except Polycarp. As he died A. D. 166, 
according to Eusebius, this reference leaves the date of 
the martyrdom of Ignatius open for any year of the first 
half of the second century. All that is advanced against 
this is that Eusebius probably derived his information as 
to the date within the reign of Trajan from Julius Afri- 
canus, a Christian chronologer of the third century. 

If we could rely upon the Ignatian martyrologies, the 
doubt would be at an end. There are nine of these, but 



So The Historic Episcopate 

they resolve themselves into two — the Colbertian and the 
Vatican. The former makes his martyrdom incidental 
to a general persecution at Antioch, consequent upon the 
great earthquake of A. D. 115, which almost destroyed 
the city, and very nearly cost Trajan his life. It repre- 
sents the emperor as directing the severe measures taken 
against the Christians, the presumable cause of the divine 
anger, and as sending Ignatius to Rome to be thrown to 
the wild beasts, after hearing him declare his faith in 
Christ. 

A close study of the martyrologies shows that they both 
use the account given by Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical 
History, and that they create new difficulties. They rep- 
resent Ignatius as taken by sea from Seleucia, the port 
of Antioch, to Smyrna. The epistles, indeed, make him 
speak of journeying "by land and sea," but they imply 
that he came to Smyrna by the military road which passed 
through Philadelphia; and it may be that he proceeded 
from Seleucia to some port in Cilicia, before starting for 
the overland journey. 

Their story is out of keeping with all we know of the 
character of the Emperor Trajan. His clemency is 
celebrated not only by pagan writers like Dio Cassius 
(Xiphilin), but by Tertullian, Melito and Lactantius 
among the fathers of the Church. His reply to the famous 
letter of Pliny shows him indisposed to use any rigor in 
enforcing the Flavian law, which made the name of 
Christian a capital offence; and he kept his reign free of 
bloodshed, except in war. "To the fathers who wrote 
during the second half of the second century," says Dr. 
Lightfoot, "and to Christian writers of subsequent ages, 
Trajan appeared as anything rather than a relentless 
persecutor. . . . The usual authors who represent 
Trajan in an unfavorable light are chiefly martyrologists 



The Ignatian Epistles 81 

and legend-mongers, to whom this dark shadow was 
necessary to give effect to the picture." 1 

But to dismiss the martyrologies, is not to get rid of 
this difficulty. The date given by Eusebius throws the 
death of Ignatius within Trajan's reign, and presents no 
difficulty in associating it with his stay at Antioch in 
A. D. 115, before starting on that Parthian war which 
was to cost him his life two years later. We are forced 
to ask if it was probable that the ruler who deprecated 
needless bloodshed, and who tried to impress on the 
capital his clemency, ordered this Christian bishop to be 
carried to Rome and thrown to the wild beasts. If this 
were done to Ignatius, must it not have been in the 
reign of the callous Hadrian, or one of the Antonine em- 
perors? 

This difficulty as to Trajan is reinforced by the greater 
difficulty of accepting the picture of the government of 
the churches of Asia given in the epistles. " Ignatius' 
conception of the position and significance of the bishop," 
says Dr. Adolph Harnack in The Expositor for January, 
1886, "has its earliest parallel in the conception of the 
author of the Apostolical Constitutions; and the epistles 
show the monarchic episcopate so firmly rooted, so highly 
elevated above all other offices, so completely beyond 
dispute, that on the ground of what we know from other 
sources of early Church history, no single investigator 
would assign the statements under consideration to the 
second, but at earliest to the third century." At that 
time he thought A. D. 140 the earliest possible date. 
In his latest work he says the epistles "were composed 
in the last years of Trajan, or perhaps a few years later 
(A. D. 117-125)"; that is, in the reign of Hadrian. Dr. 
R. A. Lipsius fixes on A. D. 140, when Antoninus Pius 

1 The Apostolic Fathers, ii, p. 2. 



82 The Historic Episcopate 

was emperor, as the earliest possible date for their compo- 
sition. That would be sixteen years before the death of 
Polycarp. 

The later date would remove a difficulty presented by 
the Ignatian epistle to the Romans. In this Ignatius 
is made to plead with them not to intercede for his life, 
and thus prevent his martyrdom. This plea is unmeaning 
if it concerned a sentence pronounced by Trajan, for no 
official in the capital would have dared to set aside the 
order of so strict a disciplinarian; and as the emperor was 
in the east and never returned from it, it could not mean 
that Ignatius was dissuading them from an appeal to 
Trajan. It acquires meaning if we suppose it the lan- 
guage of a man summoned to Rome by Hadrian or one of 
the Antonine emperors, for trial and punishment under 
the Flavian law, and aware of the manner of its execution 
in the case of a provincial who possessed no Roman 
citizenship. 

The existence of the spurious and inflated epistles casts 
some discredit upon those which are alleged to be genuine. 
I know of no other case in ancient or modern literature 
in which personal documents have been subjected to 
such elaborate interpolation and distortion, as must have 
been undertaken in this instance, if the epistles on the 
Eusebian list are genuine. It is different with the Apos- 
tolical Constitutions, which the alleged interpolator of 
Ignatius is supposed to have used. In that case the 
impostor starts from a number of impersonal codes, and 
works them into a consistent system of church law, giving 
free scope to his imagination and his rhetoric. He does 
not follow a series of epistles, text by text, with alterations 
often purposeless and uncalled for. Nor were the Igna- 
tian epistles in such esteem and currency as to make this 
worth while. They were so little in circulation that 



The Ignatian Epistles 83 

Jeronio, with all his literary curiosity and his facilities for 
seeing almost everything, east and west, does not seem to 
have met with them. And if the interpolator felt enough 
respect for Ignatius to carry him through the job of trans- 
forming his epistles for a purpose, why had he not respect 
enough for him to let them alone? But if he knew that 
they were an invention of some other forger, a sort of 
rhetorical exercise in imagining what Ignatius might, 
could or would have written, such as was usual in the 
schools of rhetoric of that age, then he may have felt free 
to recast the performance, and to show how much better 
he could have done it. 

The external evidence for the epistles is not first-rate. 
The quotations from Polycarp's epistle to the Philippians, 
given in the last chapter, show that Ignatius passed 
through that city on his way to Rome, and that he had 
written epistles of an edifying character. That these 
were the epistles of the Vossian recension might be taken 
for granted, were it not that Polycarp's own is so much 
out of harmony with their ecclesiastical theory, and that 
he represents the church in Philippi as taking so lively an 
interest in them. How could they as Presbyterians — 
Bunsen's word — find pleasure or edification in statements 
that obedience to a monarchic bishop is obedience to 
God, that the injunction "Do nothing without the bishop" 
was given by revelation, and that they who do not obey 
it have a bad conscience? 

Drs. Zahn and Lightfoot seek to break the force of this 
objection by interpreting the injunctions of the Ignatian 
epistles as pressing the claims not of any particular form 
of Church authority to obedience, but those of that which 
was found in any church, whether episcopal or presby- 
terial, and by explaining that the threefold ministry is 
specified because that existed in the churches of Asia, 



84 The Historic Episcopate 

to which these epistles were addressed. In fact, as Dr. 
Zahn puts the case, Ignatius requires obedience to Church 
government for the sake of unity, very much as the 
Apostles enjoin submission to civil authority, without 
committing the Christian Church to an exclusive approval 
of any particular form of it. ''There is no indication," 
says Dr. Lightfoot, "that he is upholding the episcopal 
against any other form of Church government, as, for 
instance, the presbyterial. The alternative which he 
contemplates is lawless isolation and self-will. No def- 
inite theory is propounded as to the principle on which 
the episcopate claims allegiance. It is as the recognized 
authority in the churches which the writer addresses 
that he maintains it. Almost simultaneously with Ig- 
natius, Polycarp addresses the Philippian church, which 
appears not yet to have had a bishop, requiring its sub- 
mission to its 'presbyters and deacons. ' If Ignatius 
had been writing to this church, he would doubtless have 
done the same. As it is, he is dealing with communities 
where episcopacy has been already matured, and therefore 
he demands obedience to their bishops.' ' 

Canon Travers Smith, writing between Zahn's treat- 
ment of the subject and that of Dr. Lightfoot, finds this 
explanation hard to reconcile with the facts. He quotes 
the statement made to the church in Tralles, that without 
the bishop and presbyters there is nothing that is called 
a church (choris touton ekklesia ou kaleitai), and finds in it 
an evident purpose to sanction episcopacy as necessary 
to the being of a church. For himself he gets over the 
difficulty presented by Polycarp's epistle by appealing 
to Ignatius as a sufficient witness to the universality of 
episcopacy. He rests his case for this upon the language 
in the Ignatian epistle to the Ephesians (cap. iii), as to 
"the bishops established in the farthest parts of the 



The I gnat Ian Epistles 85 

world" (hoi episkopoi kata ta perata horisthentes) } This 
is asking us to accept the vague and rhetorical state- 
ment of a disputed author, against the testimony of 
Clement, Hermas, the Didache and Polycarp to the con- 
trary. 

Dr. Lightfoot, like Dr. Zahn, admits the force of their 
testimony. "All the ancient notices," he says, "point 
to the mature development of episcopacy in Asia Minor 
at this time. On the other hand, all the notices of the 
church in Rome point in the other direction." After 
alleging Clement and Hermas, he proceeds: "The con- 
trast admits of an easy and natural explanation. As 
Jerome saw long ago, the episcopal government was 
matured as a safeguard against heresy and schism. As 
such it appears in the Ignatian letters. But Asia Minor 
was the hotbed of false doctrine and heretical teachers. 
Hence the early and rapid adoption of episcopacy there. 
On the other hand, Rome was remarkably free from such 
troubles. . . . Hence the episcopate, though it doubt- 
less existed in some form or other in Rome, had not yet 
(it would seem) assumed the sharp and well-defined 
monarchical character with which we are confronted in 
the eastern churches." 

But this leaves the Philippian difficulty just where it 
was, and makes the epistle of Polycarp a witness not for 
but against the six Vossian epistles, by representing the 
genuine epistles of Ignatius as pleasing and interesting 
to the Presbyterians of Philippi. Ireneus, quoted by 
Eusebius, says that Polycarp wrote several hortatory 
epistles to the neighboring churches; yet all are lost but 

1 1 give Dr. Lightfoot's translation of these words, and I feel great hesita- 
tion in suggesting that their sense is different. There is nothing in the context 
that calls for a statement of the extent of the episcopate. The words are not 
so understood in the old Latin version, which renders them, " secundum terrce 
fines deter minati." ''Within the bounds of their several districts" seems to 
me to express the writer's meaning. 



86 The Historic Episcopate 

one. Why may not the genuine epistles of Ignatius, 
sent by Polycarp to the Philippians, have perished like- 
wise? 

Two other ante-Nicene fathers refer to the Ignatian 
epistles, while Justin, Athenagoras, Clement and Diony- 
sius of Alexandria, Tertullian and Hippolytus ignore them. 

(1) Ireneus of Lyons, writing sixty or seventy 
years after Trajan's time, quotes a sentence from the 
epistle to the Romans, as spoken by "one of our people 
condemned to the wild beasts for his testimony for God." 
This probably was the only Ignatian epistle known to 
Ireneus, although Drs. Zahn and Lightfoot have tried 
to find in his writings coincidences with the other epistles, 
and to build a farther proof on the statement of Eusebius 
that Ireneus had "made use of the writings of Justin 
Martyr and Ignatius." The Ignatian epistle to the 
Romans must have circulated in the west separately from 
any others, until the literary diligence of Eusebius brought 
it into the collection. If Ireneus had known the other 
six, he surely would have used them in elaborating his 
argument against the gnostic novelties from the suc- 
cession of orthodox bishops in the churches founded by 
the Apostles. 

(2) Origen of Alexandria, writing nearly three genera- 
tions after Trajan's reign, quotes the Ignatian epistles to 
the Romans and to the Ephesians, and calls Ignatius 
"the second Bishop of Antioch after the blessed Peter," 
describing him as a martyr, and "one of the saints." 
His quotations, like those of Ireneus, Chrysostom, Basil 
and Athanasius, are all within the limits of the Cureto- 
nian Syriac recension. 

Dr. Lightfoot argues for the Eusebian date of the 
epistles from various internal peculiarities, such as the 
way in which they refer to the agape (love-feast), the re- 



The Ignatian lifustles 87 

jection of a very early type of Docetism, 1 the absence of 
reference to well developed types of gnosticism, and the 
freedom from sacerdotal claims for the clergy. His 
arguments assume an acquaintance with the situation and 
movement of affairs in the Asian churches between A. D. 
115 and A. D. 140, which is not supplied by the literature 
of the time. I can see nothing in the reference to the 
agape in the letter to the Smyrnaeans (Chapter VIII) 
which indicates that that was still a part of the eucharist, 
or which would make it a different thing from what Ter- 
tullian describes. As to freedom from sacerdotal ideas, 
I shall speak of that after giving quotations from the 
epistles themselves. 

On the other hand, the Ignatian epistles contain indi- 
cations of a later date than Drs. Zahn and Lightfoot 
claim for them. Ignatius writes to the church in Rome 
that he comes to the capital "bound to ten leopards,' ' 
meaning of course Roman soldiers. The animal we know 
under that name was well known to the Romans under 
the name of "pard" or "pardalis." That which they 
called the leopard, as supposing it a cross between the 
lion and the pard, was the cheetah or " hunting leopard" 
of Persia and India, which does not seem to have been 
known to the Romans at this time. It is mentioned in 
no other Greek or Roman writing before the Montanist 
acts of the martyrs Felicitas and Perpetua, who suffered 
at Carthage A. D. 203. Its appearance in the Ignatian 
epistles is suspicious. 

Still more suspicious is the uniformity of the language 
used as to the offices of bishop and presbyter. Other 

1 Monsignor Duchesne, in his valuable Early History of the Christian Church 
(London and New York, 1909), quotes what the Ignatian Epistle to the Trallians 
says on this head, and adds: "These expressions do not apply only to the 
reality of the death and resurrection of the Saviour; they cover the whole of 
his earthly life. They are not aimed at the imperfect Docetism of Cerinthus, 
but at a real Docetism, like that of Saturnilas and of Marcion, according to 
which Jesus Christ had only the appearance of a body." 



88 The Historic Episcopate 

writers of the period of transition — Ireneus, Clement and 
Dionysius of Alexandria, Hippolytus of Rome, Rhodon, 
Tertullian, Firmilian of Caesarea and even Cyprian — 
retain something of the earlier usage in calling bishops 
"presbyters." But there is not a trace of this in the 
Ignatian epistles, in which it might have been expected 
with great confidence. 

So is the use of the phrase "the Catholic church" in 
the letter to the church of Smyrna (Chapter VIII). That 
expression was struck out in the fervor of the controversy 
with the Gnostics, much later than the reign of Trajan. 
In justification of its appearance in the Ignatian epistles 
appeal is made to the epistle of the church in Smyrna to 
the church in Philomelium, narrating the martyrdom of 
Polycarp. But as Polycarp died in A. D. 166 according 
to Eusebius, the phrase would not be so much out of place 
there as it is in a document of the age of Trajan. But 
even there it seems to be an interpolation, as Harnack 
undertakes to show in The Expositor for December, 
1885. While it occurs both in the independent MSS. of 
that epistle, and in the ample quotations made from it 
by Eusebius, it is not found in the Armenian translation 
of Eusebius, which may have followed a purer Greek text 
of the epistle than Eusebius possessed. It does not occur 
in any undoubted writer of the second century before 
Tertullian, who died A. D. 220. 1 

Another point in which the Ignatian epistles differ from 
those we know to have come to us from early in the 
second century, is in not using the customary form of 
greeting to the churches. In a formula suggested by the 
New Testament (1 Peter i: 17; ii: 11; Hebrews xi:9), 
though not employed by its writers, and conformably to 
the belief in the nearness of the second advent, they 

1 F. C. Conybeare's Monuments of Early Christianity (London, 1894), p. 4. 



The Ignatian Epistles 89 

addressed the church of any city as "sojourning" there. 
Clement sends the greetings of "the church sojourning in 
Rome" to "the church sojourning in Corinth." Polycarp 
sends his to "the church sojourning in Philippi." "The 
church sojourning in Smyrna" sends greeting to "the 
church sojourning in Philomelium." Hence the use of 
the term paroikia (parish), meaning "sojourn," for the 
corporate body of a city church. But in the Ignatian 
epistles greeting is sent in every case to "the church which 
is in" that city, the only exception being in the "spurious" 
epistle to the Antiocheans. 

But, as Canon Travers Smith says, "the chief difficulty 
in the way of accepting the epistles as genuine has always 
been found in the form of Church government which they 
record as existing, and which they support with great 
emphasis. In the cities of Asia Minor and in Syria they 
display to us the threefold ministry established, and the 
term episkopos and presbuteros are applied to perfectly 
distinct orders." This was the point made by Jean Daille, 
their most vigorous critic at the time of the publication of 
the Vossian recension; and he is amply sustained by mod- 
ern scholarship in pressing this as "the palmary argu- 
ment" against them. 

Dr. Light foot admits that "at one time he had enter- 
tained misgivings about the seven Vossian letters"; but 
he reached a very positive conclusion in their favor, when 
he edited them in his valuable edition of the Apostolic 
Fathers. So far from being staggered by the picture they 
present of the churches of Asia, he apparently would have 
been filled with doubts if they had presented any other. 
"If the writer of these letters," he says, "had represented 
the churches of Asia Minor as under presbyterial govern- 
ment, he would have contradicted all the evidence, 
which, without one dissentient voice, points to episcopacy 



90 The Historic Episcopate 

as the established form of government in those districts 
from the close of the first century." These are strong 
words; but what is there on which to rest such confidence? 
Not one scrap of contemporary evidence from any source 
in Asia Minor, during the first half of the century, at the 
opening of which he places these epistles. Against it 
the epistle of the Apostle John to Gaius, the Didache, 
and Polycarp. " Apart from the epistles of Ignatius," 
says Dr. Harnack, "we do not possess a single witness to 
the existence of the monarchical episcopate so early as the 
time of Trajan and Hadrian." Sir William Ramsay's 
researches into the monumental records of Phrygia bring 
to light no name of a bishop earlier than the third century. 1 

Dr. Lightfoot appeals to four authorities, all of them 
from the close of the second century. Of Ireneus and 
Clement of Alexandria, I shall speak in the next chapter. 
Here I speak of the other two. 

(a) The Muratorian Fragment, which Dr. Lightfoot and 
others date A. D. 170, and Dr. Salmon thinks cannot be 
later than A. D. 180, preserves for us a valuable cata- 
logue of the books of the New Testament. It says that 
John wrote his Gospel, cohortantibus condiscipulis et 
episcopis suis, "at the persuasion of his fellow-disciples 
and bishops." The statement has value only if the 
Roman author of the fragment is using some earlier docu- 
ment. Its language fits more naturally into the state of 
things when John had at Ephesus a council of presbyter- 
bishops, than into that produced by the erection of a 
single bishop above the rest. This is Dr. Harnack's 
judgment. 

(6) Polycrates became Bishop of Ephesus in the last 
decade of the second century. He stood up for the 
Asian usage in determining the proper day for the ob- 

1 The Cities and Bishopric* of Phrygia, II vols. Oxford, 1895-1897. 



The Ignatian Epistles 91 

scrvance of Easter, against the attempt of Victor, Bishop 
of Rome, to force western usage upon all the churches. 
He alleges the Apostles Philip and John, Polycarp and 
four other early lights of Asia, as supporting the Asian 
usage. "All these," he says, "observed the fourteenth 
day of the passover, according to the gospel, deviating 
in no respect, but following the rule of the faith. And I 
also, Polycrates, the least of you all, [do] according to the 
tradition of my kinsfolk, some of whom I have followed. 
For seven kinsfolk of mine were bishops, and I the eighth. 
And my kinsfolk always observed the day on which the 
[Jewish] people threw away the leaven. I then, brethren, 
who have sixty-five years in the Lord, and have met 
with the brethren from all the world, and have gone 
through all Holy Scripture, am not scared by terrifying 
[words]." 

What does this language prove for the existence of the 
monarchic episcopate in Asia? Is it supposable that 
before the church in Ephesus had reached its century and 
a half, eight in one family connection had filled the place 
of monarchic bishop there? Or are we to commit the 
anachronism of distributing these eight through the 
churches of Asia, ignoring the usage that each church in 
that age found its ministers among its own members? 
The eight "bishops" were mostly contemporaneous pres- 
byter-bishops of that eminent church, and more than one 
of them may have taken part in urging John to write the 
fourth Gospel. 

Let me note here that Polycrates, the monarchic Bishop 
of Ephesus in A. D. 190, like every other writer of the 
second century, omits to mention the name of the bishop 
whom the Apostle John appointed to occupy that see. 
We have to go to spurious writings of unknown date, 
ascribed to Dorotheus and Hippolytus, for the information 



02 The Historic Episcopate 

that one of the Seventy Disciples (Luke x: 1, 17), 
named Caius, 1 or another of them named Phygellus, 
received that appointment. And then we find this con- 
tradicted by the equally trustworthy ''tradition" of the 
Apostolical Constitutions, which tell us that the first 
Bishop of Ephesus was another John than the Apostle. 
This is a matter of the first importance for Dr. Lightfoot, 
who, while admitting that the development of monarchic 
episcopacy "was not simultaneous and equal in all parts 
of Christendom," asserts that "it is more especially con- 
nected with the name of S. John; and in the early years 
of the second century the episcopate was widely spread 
and had firmly taken root in Syria and Asia Minor." 
Now Ephesus was the city in which, according to Ireneus, 
Clement of Alexandria and Polycrates, the last of the 
Apostles, spent his later years; yet authentic "tradition" 
is silent as to his appointment of any bishop of that church. 

I shall now quote from the Ignatian epistles, in the 
Vossian and Curetonian recensions, what they have to 
say about the monarchic episcopate, both in itself and in 
relation to the other offices of the Church. And first as to 
the Curetonian (Syriac) recension: 

The epistle to the church in Rome is entirely silent upon 
the subject. Ignatius himself is described as "Theo- 
phorus" in the greeting, but not as Bishop of Antioch. 
And no reference is made to any bishop of the church in 

1 The farther we get from the times of the Apostles, the more abundant the 
information as to what they did in appointing bishops for the churches they 
established. The poverty of the lists we get from Tertullian and Ireneus 
is more than compensated by later "tradition," which enumerates one hundred 
and sixteen cities, which received the monarchic episcopate at the hands of an 
Apostle, mostly those of Peter. Fifty-nine of these apostolic bishops are said 
to have been of the number of the Seventy Disciples, and thirty-five others are 
identified with persons mentioned elsewhere in the New Testament. To these 
are added eight other New Testament characters. In fact, any male person of 
fair repute who had the good fortune to be mentioned in the New Testament 
was sure of being provided with the oversight of some notable church of which 
he never heard, and in some country he never visited. For details see J. E. T. 
Wiltsch's Handbook of the Geography and Statistics of the Church (London, 1859). 
i: 26-33. 



The Ignatian Epistles 93 

Rome. Renan thinks this the only genuine epistle in the 
series. 

The epistle to the church in Ephesus, in the Curetonian 
recension, contains nothing but a reference to "Onesimus 
your bishop." 

The epistle to Polycarp has exactly the same statement 
on the subject in the Syriac as in the Greek, but oddly 
enough, while the epistle is addressed to the bishop, it 
contains an exhortation as to episcopacy addressed to the 
church, although that also is instructed on the subject 
in another epistle in the Greek recension. He says: 

If anyone be able to continue in chastity [i. e., celibacy] in 
honor of our Lord's flesh, let him do so without glorying, else 
he is lost. If he is known, except to the bishop, he is corrupted. 
It befits those who marry, both men and women, to make their 
union with the knowledge of the bishop, that their marriage 
may be according to the Lord, and not according to lust. Let 
all things be done to the honor of God. Give heed to your 
bishop that God may give heed to you. My soul be ransom 
for those who are subject to the bishop and the presbyters and 
the deacons (Chapters V and VI). 

In the shorter Greek recension of the epistle to the 
church in Ephesus, but not in the Syriac, occur the follow- 
ing passages: 

For Jesus Christ, our inseparable life, is the purpose of the 
Father; as also the bishops each within his boundaries, are 
the purpose of Jesus Christ. Wherefore it befits you to concur 
with the opinion of the bishop, as also ye do. For your presby- 
tery honorable, worthy of God, is fitted as the strings to the 
harp. Therefore it is that Jesus Christ is sung in charity, 
through your agreement and harmonious love. 

If I, in a short time, have formed such intimacy with your 
bishop, as is not of man but of the Spirit, how much more do I 
judge you happy who are so joined to him as the Church to 
Jesus Christ, and as Jesus Christ to the Father, that all things 
may be harmonious in unity. Let no one mistake. If anyone 
be not within the altar, he comes short of the bread of God. 
For if the prayer of one and another have such power, how much 
greater that of the bishop and of the whole Church ! Whoever 
comes not to the assembly, is already elated with pride, and 
has condemned himself. For it is written, "God resisteth the 



94 The Historic Episcopate 

proud." Let us give diligence therefore not to resist the bishop, 
that we may be subject to God. 

And however long anyone sees the bishop keep silence, let 
him revere him the more. For everyone whom the master of 
the house sends to rule his house, it befits us to receive as we 
would him who sent him. The bishop, therefore, we evidently 
should look upon as the Lord himself. Onesimiis himself, 
however, praises your good order in the Lord exceedingly, that 
you all live according to the Truth, and that no heresy dwells 
among you (Chapters III-VI). 

The four epistles not found in the Syriac, but in the 
shorter Greek recension, and mentioned by Eusebius, 
are addressed to the churches in Magnesia, Tralles, Phila- 
delphia and Smyrna. All of them contain exhortations 
to obedience to the bishop, couched in the same style 
as those already quoted: 

Since, therefore, I was thought worthy to see you through 
Damas your godly bishop, and the worthy presbyters Bassus 
and Apollonius, and my fellow-servant the deacon Sotion, in 
whom let me have joy, because he is subject to the bishop as 
to the grace of God, and to the presbytery as to the law of 
Christ. But it becomes you also not to abuse the age of your 
bishop, but according to the power of God the Father, to bestow 
upon him all reverence, as I have known also the holy presby- 
ters to do, not taking up what seems his more youthful condition, 
but as prudent men in God, giving place to him, and that not 
to him, but to the Father of Jesus Christ, the Bishop of all. 
To the honor, therefore, of him who hath chosen us, it is be- 
coming for us to render obedience without hypocrisy, since he 
who errs in this, does so not as to the bishop whom we see, 
but undertakes to deceive the Invisible. Such a thing is to 
be regarded as concerning not the flesh, but God who knows 
secret things. It befits you, therefore, not only to be called 
Christians, but to be such, just as some call the bishop such, 
yet manage all things without him. Such persons seem to me 
not to have a good conscience, since they are not firmly as- 
sembled according to the commandment. 

I exhort you to study to do all things in harmony of God, 
the bishop taking the first seat in place of God, and the presby- 
ters in place of the council of the Apostles, and the deacons, 
most sweet to me, having intrusted to them the service of Jesus 
Christ, who before ages was with the Father, and who was 
manifested in the end. All then, accepting the common usage 
of God, reverence each other, and let no one look upon his 
neighbor according to the flesh, but love one another always in 
Jesus Christ. Let there be nothing among you which shall be 



The TgnaHan Epistles 95 

able to divide you, but he united to the bishop and those who 
preside for :i symbol and teaching of immortality. For just 
as the Lord did nothing without the Father, although united 
with him, either by himself or l>y his Apostles, so do you 
perform nothing without the bishop and the presbyters. 

Study to bo established in the doctrines of the Lord and of 
the Apostles, that all that you do may turn out well for flesh 
and spirit, faith and love in Son, Father and Spirit, in the be- 
ginning and end, with your most estimable bishop and worthily 
spiritual crown of your presbyters, and the godly deacons. 
Submit yourselves to the bishop and to one another, as Jesus 
Christ submitted himself to the Father according to the flesh, 
and the Apostles to Christ and the Father and the Spirit, that 
your unity may be both fleshly and spiritual (Epistle to the 
church in Magnesia: Chapters II, III, IV, VI, VII, XIII). 

When you are subject to the bishop as to Jesus Christ, you 
seem to me to live not according to men but to Jesus Christ, 
who died for us that ye may escape dying through believing in 
his death. It is necessary, therefore, that however you may 
act, you do nothing without the bishop; but subject yourselves 
also to the presbytery as to the Apostles of Jesus Christ, our 
hope, in whom we shall be found living. It is needful also to 
please the deacons, as of the mysteries of Jesus Christ, in every 
way in all things. For they are not ministers of meat and 
drink, but servants of the Church of God. It is necessary for 
them to guard themselves against accusations as fire. Let all 
alike reverence the deacons as the ordinance of Jesus Christ, 
and the bishop as Jesus Christ the Son of the Father, the pres- 
byters as the council of God and the bond of the Apostles. 
Without these the Church is not called. I am persuaded that 
you take this position about these. For I have received the 
exemplar of your love, and have it with me in your bishop. 

Keep yourselves from such [heretics]. This will be true 
of you if ye be not puffed up, nor separated from God, Jesus 
Christ and the bishop, and the ordinance of the Apostles. He 
who is within the altar is pure; that is, he who does anything 
without bishop and presbytery and deacon., is not clean in 
conscience. 

I beseech you by my bonds, which I bear for Jesus Christ, 
seeking to attain to God, continue in one mind and in prayer 
with one another. For it befits each one of you, and especially 
the presbyters, to refresh the bishop, to the honor of the Father, 
Jesus Christ and the Apostles. I pray of you in charity to 
hear me, lest I be a witness against you in writing. Farewell 
in Jesus Christ, being subject to the bishop as to the ordinance, 
and to the presbytery likewise (Epistle to the church in Tralles: 
Chapters II, III, VII, XII, XIII). 

Ignatius to the church of God which is in Philadelphia in 
Asia, . . . which is my eternal and steadfast joy, especially 
if they are in unity with their bishop, and with the presbyters 
who are with him, and with the deacons. . . . Which 



q6 The Historic Episcopate 

bishop I know not from himself nor through men, to have 
obtained his ministry suited to the common interest, not of 
vainglory, but in the love of the Father and of the Lord Jesus 
Christ; with whose gentleness I have been much struck; who 
in silence can do more than those who talk foolish things. 

As children of Light and Truth, flee division and bad doc- 
trines. Where your pastor is, there as sheep follow him. . . . 
For as many as are of God and Jesus Christ, these are with 
the bishop; and as many as come by repentance into the unity 
of the Church, these also will be of God, that they may be 
living according to Jesus Christ. Do not err, my brethren. 
If anyone follow him who makes division, he does not inherit 
the kingdom of God; if anyone walk in strange opinions, he 
does not assent to the passion. Study, therefore, to use one 
eucharist, for the flesh of the Lord Jesus Christ is one, and the 
cup in the unity of his blood is one, one altar, as one bishop, 
along with the presbytery and deacons, my fellow-servants. 

For even if some according to the flesh wished to deceive 
me, yet the Spirit is not deceived, being from God. For it 
knows whence it cometh and whither it goeth, and brings to 
light the hidden things. I cried aloud, when with you, I spoke 
with a great voice: "Give heed to the bishop, the presbytery 
and deacons." Some, indeed, suspected me of foreknowing 
the division of some when I spoke thus. He is my witness, 
for whom I am in bonds, that I knew it not from human flesh. 
But the Spirit proclaimed it, saying, "Do nothing without the 
bishop; keep your flesh as the temple of God; flee divisions; 
be ye followers of Jesus Christ, as he is of the Father." (Epistle 
to the church in Philadelphia: Chapters I, II, III, IV, VI.) 

Let all follow the bishop, as Jesus Christ the Father, and the 
presbytery as the Apostles. And reverence the deacons as 
the ordinance of God. Let no one, without the bishop, do 
anything pertaining to the Church. Let that be regarded as a 
valid eucharist, which is by the bishop, or him to whom the 
bishop intrusts it. Wherever the bishop appears, there let 
the assembly be also, as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the 
Catholic Church. It is not permitted either to baptize or to 
hold a love-feast without the bishop; but whatever he approves, 
this is well pleasing to God also, in order that whatever is 
transacted may be unshaken and valid. 

It is good to know God and the bishop. He who honors the 
bishop is honored of God; he who does anything without the 
knowledge of the bishop, serves the Devil. 

Greet your bishop worthy of God, and your presbytery most 
pleasing to God, and the deacons my fellow-servants (Epistle 
to the church in Smyrna: Chapters VIII, IX, XII). 

Such is the Ignatian teaching as to the monarchic 
episcopate, in its entirety. It is notable in several 
respects. 



The Ignatian Epistles 97 

Observe that the Ignatian epistles afford no direct 
support to Dr. Lightfoot's theory that monarchic epis- 
copacy is of apostolic origin. It would have afforded 
an excellent reinforcement of their injunctions that the 
Church shall obey and depend upon the bishop if it could 
have been added that his position had its warrant from 
the Apostles. In the epistle to the church in Ephesus, 
how easy and natural it would have been to remind the 
Ephesians that they had received their first bishop at the 
hands of the beloved Apostle, and even to have named 
him for the information of posterity and the comfort of 
Dr. Lightfoot. But there is not a word of this in that 
epistle, or as to the activity of the Apostle in giving a 
bishop authority to bear rule over each of the churches of 
Asia, for the establishment of unity and for the prevention 
of heresy. In fact the Ignatian epistles never mention 
the Apostle John, although they mention Paul, Peter and 
Timothy; nor do they quote any of his writings. "It 
seems impossible," says Canon Bruce, "that Ignatius 
could have read the letters to the seven churches in Asia 
in the Apocalypse, and have made no allusion to them 
when writing to three of the same churches and to two 
other churches in the same province. The omission gives 
no color to the theory that St. John was the founder of 
the episcopacy in the churches of Asia, and through them 
in all churches." 1 

The epistles, however, do represent the monarchic 
episcopate as having a divine right in the churches. But 
this is made to rest (a) on the fitness of things, and (6) on 
a special revelation made to Ignatius. 

(a) The threefold ministry is treated as an ecclesiastical 
order which corresponded to the spiritual order of the 
Gospels. The bishop stands for our Lord and the pres- 

1 Apostolic Order and Unity (Edinburgh, 1903), p. 106. 

7 



98 The Historic Episcopate 

byters for the Apostles; and this correspondence is so 
self-evident, so complete and so important, that anyone 
who rejects it shows a contempt for divine authority, 
has a bad conscience, and resists God. They who accept 
it are " living according to Jesus Christ." 

(b) Of the revelation in behalf of monarchic episcopacy, 
we learn from the epistle to the church in Philadelphia. 
It must be remembered that until the rise of Montanism, 
in the last quarter of the second century, the Church gener- 
ally believed in the continuance of prophetic inspiration. 
Ignatius is represented in that epistle as claiming — as did 
Hermas and others — to speak to the churches with the 
authority of the Holy Spirit. He writes to that church: 
"The Spirit proclaimed it, saying, 'Do nothing without 
the bishop.'" I do not observe that the champions of 
authenticity lay much stress on this statement. Even 
they hardly will find in their author that weight of sobriety 
and simplicity which befits a true prophet. They want 
a "historic episcopate;" but he lifts himself above history 
and precedent, by basing it upon a private revelation. 

The Ignatian epistles also give no sanction to the no- 
tion that the monarchic bishop is a successor of the 
Apostles. "It is certainly somewhat startling," says 
Canon Travers Smith, "to those who are accustomed to 
regard bishops as the successors of the Apostles, that 
Ignatius everywhere speaks of the position of the Apostles 
as corresponding to that of the existing presbyters, while 
the prototype of the bishop is not the Apostles, but the 
Lord himself." No writer of the early Church before 
Cyprian speaks of the monarchic bishops as successors of 
the Apostles; and even he makes them rather the suc- 
cessors of Peter than of the Twelve. The generations 
which stood nearest to the Apostles knew that bishops, 
whether of the earlier or the later type, were not taking 



The Ignatian Epistles 99 

up the work of the Apostles as world-wide witnesses of 
the resurrection of their Lord, and as missionaries, not to 

angle city, but to all nations. The Ignatian epistles 
aim only at exhibiting the threefold ministry as repro- 
ducing in each city-church what corresponded to the 
order of the gospel story, so that the presbyters naturally 
took the second place in the church, as did the Apostles 
in that. 

Dr. Light foot bases an argument for the authenticity 
of the epistles on their freedom from those sacerdotal 
ideas of the ministry which afterwards pervaded the 
churches. Canon Travers Smith, however, says: "We 
find in the epistles the germ of the great ideas of worship 
afterwards developed in the Church. The altar-idea and 
the temple-idea as applied to the Church are there. The 
eucharist holds its commanding place, though the ques- 
tion what were its rites at this early period is hard to 
answer from the letters. " 

The essential thing in sacerdotalism is the limitation of 
access to God to the ministrations of a clerical class. 
On that road the Ignatian epistles, whatever their teach- 
ing about the eucharist, have gone far from the simplicity 
of the gospel. They require the Church to be subject to 
the bishop as to their Maker. Where he is, the Church 
is, without regard to the promise made to the ''two or 
three" (Matthew xviii: 20). They who ignore him in 
anything have a defiled conscience, and serve the Devil. 
The Church is to follow him as the sheep follow their 
shepherd. That they have a divine " Shepherd and Bishop 
of their souls" (1 Peter ii: 25), whose voice they can hear 
for themselves (John x:3), is never suggested. It is 
only a step farther to the teaching of the Apostolical Con- 
stitutions, which say of the bishop: "He is your ruler and 
governor, your king and potentate; he is next after God 



ioo The Historic Episcopate 

your earthly god, who has a right to be revered by you. . 
. . Let the bishop preside over you with the authority 
of God. . . . Let the presbyters be esteemed by 
you to represent the Apostles." 

Whether authentic or not, the Ignatian epistles furnish 
neither warrant nor precedent for that diocesan epis- 
copacy which in later days has been put forward as "the 
historic episcopate." The Ignatian bishop is the pastor 
of an urban church, whose members constitute a single 
congregation, meet in one house of worship, break one 
loaf in their communion. " That they are to do nothing 
without their bishop" is the injunction most frequently 
repeated to them. He is their bishop in John Ruskin's 
sense, knowing all about the troubles of Bill and Nancy 
in the back streets of Antioch, with the care of their 
souls upon him as his chief work in life. His is what 
Dr. Seabury called "the new-fangled scheme of parochial 
episcopacy," and nothing grander. 



CHAPTER IV 

From Senate to Monarch 

After the middle of the second century we find the 
monarchic episcopate generally established in the churches 
of both east and west; and we also meet with writers who 
claim for it apostolic origin and authority, generally in 
the supposed interests of Christian unity and orthodoxy. 
They appeal to the succession of orthodox bishops in the 
churches founded by the Apostles, as disproving the claim 
of the gnostic heretics to represent the Christianity of 
the Church's first days. In this connection I shall quote 
what is said by: 

I. Hegesippus (A. D. 156-189); 
II. Ireneus of Lyons (A. D. 177-189); 

III. Clement of Alexandria (A. D. 190-215); 

IV. Tertullian of Carthage (A. D. 197-220); 
V. Cyprian of Carthage (A. D. 248-258) ; 

VI. Dionysius of Alexandria (A. D. 232-265); and 
VII. The Constitutions and Canons of the Holy Apostles. 
To this I shall add what (8) Isaac of Rome, (9) Jerome, 
and (10) Aerius of Sebasteia have to say against the view 
that the monarchic episcopate dates back to the times of 
the Apostles, and has a divine right to govern the Church. 
I. Hegesippus was an oriental Christian, probably a 
Hebrew Christian from Palestine, who traveled west- 
ward to Corinth and Rome, and who compiled five books 
of Memoirs, which are known to us only through some 
quotations made by Eusebius (A. D. 325). These leave 
us in doubt as to both the purpose of the work and the 

IOI 



102 The Historic Episcopate 

theological position of i,ts author. Some regard it as a work 
on the history of the Church; others as an account of the 
Church as he found it in his travels. Had it been either, 
others think, Eusebius would have quoted it far more 
freely; so they believe it to have been a treatise in refuta- 
tion of Gnosticism, containing a few incidental historical 
notices, which Eusebius found useful for his history. 

More important is the question of his orthodoxy. 
Baur and his school regard Hegesippus as an Ebionite, 
and treat his statements as justifying the inference that 
Ebionism was the generally accepted doctrine of the 
Church of the west as late as the last quarter of the second 
century. The fact, however, may be true without war- 
ranting the inference. It may be that Hegesippus was 
an Ebionite; but it does not follow that his claims as to 
the prevalence of Ebionism in the early Church were true. 

There is nothing that points in either direction in the 
passage which tells of the Roman authorities making 
inquiry in the reign of Domitian (A. D. 81-96) as to the 
surviving kinsmen of our Lord. But the account of 
James the Lord's brother 1 seems to have been taken from 
Ebionite sources, and to describe him as an Ebionite 
ascetic : 

James the Lord's brother, surnamed the Just, ... re- 
ceived the Church in his turn after the Apostles. This man was 
holy from his mother's womb. Wine and strong drink he 
never drank; nor did he eat flesh. A razor went not upon his 
head; with oil he never anointed himself; and the bath he 
did not use. To him alone it was permitted to enter the holy 
place [of the Temple], for he did not wear woollen, but linens. 
And alone he went into the Temple, and used to be found 
prostrate upon his knees, praying for the release of the people, 
so that his knees grew hard as those of a camel, because of his 
constant bending in supplication to God, to entreat release for 
the people. . . . Some of the seven sects among the 
people asked him what was the door to Jesus. And he told 
them that He was the Saviour. 

1 Eusebii Historia Ecclesiastica, Lib. II, Cap. 23. 



From Senate to Monarch 103 

Then follows the account of his martyrdom, copying 
in some of its details the story of our Lord's passion. It 
occurs at a passover time; the rulers fear that the people 
may be led to accept Jesus as the Messiah; James is 
stoned and clubbed to death, and his last words are, "I 
beseech thee, O Lord God Father, forgive them, for they 
know not what they do!" Eusebius adds, "In this, but 
more fully, Hegesippus agrees with Clement." His 
reference is to Clement of Alexandria, who, in his Outlines 
(Hupotuposeis), gives an account of James not unlike that 
of Hegesippus, and drawn from the same Ebionite sources. 
Both Hegesippus and Clement were students of the 
pseudo-apostolic records which claim Clement of Rome 
as their author, although Clement of Alexandria was the 
farthest from its Ebionism. These books exalt James to 
the rank of "lord and bishop of the whole Church," 
"archbishop," "the lord and bishop of bishops," and make 
Peter his humble subordinate. It is true that no existing 
portion of that queer collection of apocryphal histories 
and teachings contains an account of James's asceticism 
and martyrdom. But we know that both the Clementine 
Recognitions and the Clementine Homilies are an abridg- 
ment of a still larger work now lost; and the harmony of 
this narrative with their general purport leads us to sup- 
pose that this is the source from which they have drawn. 
Albrecht Ritschl, in his Entstehung der altkatholischen 
Kirche (1857), the work with which he bade farewell to 
Baur and his school, although he antagonizes the in- 
ference that Ebionism is primitive Christianity, and makes 
out the best case he can for the orthodoxy of Hegesippus, 
yet admits that this account of James has an Ebionite 
and Essenish stamp. 

Nor is this the only indication of the Ebionism of 
Hegesippus. Eusebius mentions that he uses the Ebionite 



104 The Historic Episcopate 

" Gospel According to the Hebrews" (as does also Clem- 
ent of Alexandria), and does not mention his using any 
other. Photius quotes Stephen Gobarus as saying that 
Hegesippus reprobated as vain words the statement, 
"Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered 
into the heart of man the things which God hath pre- 
pared for the just." Now it is possible that the Gnostics 
made a wrong use of the Apostle's words (1 Corinthians 
ii: 9); but an orthodox Christian, who accepted Paul 
as an Apostle, would almost certainly have discriminated 
between his meaning and the gnostic abuse of his lan- 
guage. And when we find Hegesippus describing the 
canon of Scripture as consisting of "the law, the prophets 
and the Lord," i. e., the gospel, with no mention of the 
apostolic writings, we seem to be on Ebionite ground. 
Ritschl, indeed, is alleged by Professor Milligan (in Smith 
and Wace's Dictionary of Christian Biography) to have 
shown these terms "to be precisely those of the Catholic 
Church of the time, to which it made its appeal, and 
in which it instructed its catechumens." But Ritschl 
does nothing of the sort. He tries to account for the 
omission by the supposition that the canonical rank of 
the apostolic writings "was not yet fully established." 
Yet the Pauline Epistles were already quoted as having 
authority by Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Hermas, 
"Ignatius," the epistle to Diognetus, Valentinus, Marcion, 
and Justin Martyr, as well as enumerated as part of the 
canon in the Muratorian Fragment. Ritschl quotes four 
passages from early Christian literature which bear on 
the question, namely, from the epistle to Diognetus 
(second century), Ireneus and Tertullian, which expressly 
mention the writings of the Apostles, while the Apostolical 
Constitutions (regarded by Rothe and Baur as of Ebionite 
origin) specify only the law, the prophets and the gospel. 



From Senate to Monarch 105 

Add to this that the work of Hegesippus, in spite of the 
interest of its subject, has perished along with the works 
of the heretics generally, except in a few quotations. 

For our present purpose, the most important of the 
quotations Eusebius makes from Hegesippus is that which 
relates to his travels to the west: 

And the church of the Corinthians continued in the right 
teaching, down to Primus, who was bishop in Corinth. And 
with them I had intercourse while journeying to Rome, and 
spent days enough with the Corinthians, during which we found 
rest in the right doctrine. And on arriving in Rome I made out 
the succession [of bishops] as far as Anicetus [A. D. 157-168], 
whose deacon Eleutherus was. And from Anicetus Soter 
received it, after whom Eleutherus [A. D. 177-192]. And in 
each succession and in each city it is so, as the law proclaims, 
and the prophets, and the Lord. 1 

What concerns us here is that (as Dr. Salmon puts it) 
"a traveler to Rome, about A. D. 160, found that church 
ruled by a bishop, and that the Roman church [or some of 
its members] then believed that since the Apostles' times 
it had been governed by bishops, whose names were then 
preserved." If the traveler was an Ebionite, he seems to 
claim that Ebionism was the dominant teaching in the 
two churches he mentions. His language seems to me 
rather that of a sectarian, who is seeking confirmation 
for his sectarian sympathies, than of a Christian rejoicing 
in the diffusion of the gospel. But if so, his account is as 
little to be taken for a picture of the actual situation as are 
the reports of " party prospects" in a doubtful American 
election. Hegesippus may have gone upon the familiar 
maxim: "Claim everything!" 

His is the oldest unquestioned testimony as to the 
existence of the monarchic episcopate in the churches. 
He is the fountain head of the traditions about the 
Bishops of Jerusalem and Rome. That he did not draw 

1 Eusebii Historia Ecclesiastica, Lib. IV, Cap. 22. 



106 The Historic Episcopate 

his information from the archives of the church in Rome 
is indicated by the absence of any recognized tradition as 
to the names and order in succession of the bishops of 
that church, and their relations to the Apostles Paul and 
Peter. Dr. Richard F. Littledale, in his work on The 
Petrine Claims (London, 1889), enumerates eleven diver- 
gent views of this from' the second, third and fourth 
centuries. Some of these are: 

Ireneus: Peter and Paul, Linus, Anacletus, Clement. 

Tertullian: Peter, Clement. 

Apostolical Constitutions: Linus (ordained by Paul), 
Clement (ordained by Peter). 

Optatus: Peter, Linus, Clement, Anacletus. 

Epiphanius: Peter and Paul, Linus, Cletus, Clement. 

Rufinus: Linus, Cletus (both dying before Peter). 

Victorinus: Linus, Cletus, Anacletus, Clement. 

Liberian Catalogue: Peter, Linus, Clement, Cletus, 
Anacletus. 

This last was drawn up in Rome A. D. 354, under Pope 
Liberius, possibly to settle by authority the points in 
dispute. "The utter discrepancy," says Dr. Littledale, 
"of these different accounts of the order and succession 
shows that no reliance whatever can be placed upon the 
trustworthiness of the early Roman historical records." 
"The alleged succession of the early Roman bishops," 
says Dean Stanley, "is involved in contradictions which 
can only be explained on the supposition that there was 
then no fixed episcopate." 1 

This "amount of irreconcilable variation concentrated 
within the brief space of thirty-three years," as Dr. Little- 
dale calls it, grows inevitably out of an attempt to read 
the story of a presbyterially governed church into har- 
mony with a monarchic-episcopal theory of what had 

1 Christian Institutions, p. 214. 



From Senate to Monarch 107 

happened. Historical literature abounds in such mis- 
readings. So Baeda tells of Caedmon in the monastic 
terms of his own time, changing the Celtic church- 
sept at Whitby into a monastery, and its co-arb 
Hilda into an abbess. So Linus, Anacletus, Cletus and 
Clement — presbyter-bishops of the church in Rome and 
contemporary members of its presbytery — are transformed 
into successive monarchic bishops of that church, and 
made the first after Peter in the series of the popes. 
Their contemporary, Hermas, describes them rightly as 
"elders who were over the church." 

II. Ireneus, the estimable Bishop of Lyons, was a 
native of Asia, and heard Poly carp preach in his early 
youth, but made his home in the west. His birth is 
dated by one modern at A. D. 97, and by another at A. D. 
147. We know that after the persecution of A. D. 177 
he became the Bishop of Lyons, and was still active at the 
close of the century. All his writings, except the recently 
recovered Exposition of Apostolic Teaching, are polemic, 
and are occupied with the refutation of the gnostic heresies, 
which his countryman and acquaintance Florinus had 
brought from the east into the churches of Italy. The 
chief is his Detection and Overthrow of Gnosis Falsely So 
Called, which we possess in an early Latin translation, 
and in passages of the original Greek. It dates from about 
A. D. 182. 

What brings Ireneus into the present discussion is the 
stress he lays upon the succession of orthodox bishops as 
part of his answer to the Gnostics. Yet he is by no means 
clear as to the distinction between bishop and presbyter. 
"Leimbach can have made but small acquaintance with 
the writings of Ireneus," says Dr. R. A. Lipsius in the 
Dictionary of Christian Biography, "if he imagines that 
the term presbuteros constituted for him an antithesis to 



108 The Historic Episcopate 

episkopos. It is just a characteristic feature of his style 
that this antithesis was for him as yet unknown." This, 
however, is an overstatement. Ireneus stands, in fact, 
on the dividing line between the earlier and the later view 
of the relation of the two officers, and uses at one time the 
language of the earlier period, and at others that of the 
later. But so far from not recognizing such antithesis, 
he has a distinct interest in establishing it. 

I give first the pertinent passages from his great trea- 
tise, and then extracts from two epistles written subse- 
quently : 

From the fortieth to the fiftieth year the man declines toward 
old age, arrived at which our Lord was teaching, as the gospel 
and all the presbyters testify, who in Asia had met with John 
the disciple of the Lord, that John had handed this down to 
them. For he remained with them until the times of Trajan. 
Some of them besides saw not only John, but other Apostles 
also, and bore witness of a like report (ii, 22, 5). 

When we call upon them to consider that tradition, which is 
from the Apostles, which is preserved in the churches through 
the successions of presbyters, they are opposed to tradition, 
saying that they are wiser not only than the presbyters, but 
also than the Apostles, and have discovered the pure truth 
(iii, 2, 2). 

The tradition of the Apostles, therefore, manifest in the whole 
world, it is possible for all who desire to see the truth, to per- 
ceive in every church; and we are able to count up those who 
were appointed by the Apostles bishops in the churches, and 
their successors down to our own times, who neither taught 
nor knew such stuff as these men's deliriums (iii, 3, 1). 

Since it would be very long in such a volume as this to count 
up the successions of all the churches, we confound those 
who through self-pleasing, or vainglory, or blindness and evil 
opinion, meet for worship otherwise than they ought, by point- 
ing out the tradition of the greatest and oldest and universally 
known church, founded and constituted at Rome by the two 
most glorious Apostles Peter and Paul, and the faith declared 
to men which comes down to us through the succession of its 
bishops. For to this church, because of its more powerful 
leadership, it befits every church, — that is, the faithful wherever 
they are, — to conform; for within it is preserved that tradition 
which is from the Apostles (iii, 3, 2). 

The blessed Apostles, having founded and built up the church 
[in Rome] intrusted the ministry of the episcopate to Linus. 



From Senate to Monarch 109 

Of this Linus Paul makes mention in his Epistles to Timothy. 
AnencletUfl succeeded him. After him, in the third place from 
the Apostles. Clement obtained the episcopate, who had both 
Been the blessed Apostles and conversed with them, so that he 
had their teaching in his ears, and their tradition before his 
eyes. Xor he alone, for many then were living, who had been 
taught by the Apostles. In the time of this Clement no small 
dissension having arisen among the brethren in Corinth, the 
church in Rome sent a most suitable letter to the Corinthians, 
reconciling them in peace, renewing their faith, and the tra- 
dition they had newly received from the Apostles. Euarestus 
succeeded this Clement, and Alexander Euarestus. Then like- 
wise, sixth from the Apostles, Xystus is appointed. After 
him Telesphorus, who also endured martyrdom gloriously. 
Then Hyginus; then Pius; after him Anicetus; Soter having 
succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherus, in the twelfth place from the 
Apostles, now holds the ministry of the episcopate. In the 
same order, and the same succession, the tradition in the church 
and the preaching of the truth have come down to us from the 
Apostles (iii, 3, 2-3). 

But Polycarp also was not only taught by the Apostles, and 
acquainted with many who had seen Christ, but also by the 
Apostles in Asia had been appointed bishop in the church in 
Smyrna, whom we also saw in our first youth, for he lived a 
long time, and when a very old man departed from life by a 
glorious and illustrious martyr's death. He taught always 
those things he had learned from the Apostles, which the Church 
also hands down, and which alone are true. All the churches 
throughout Asia bear witness to these things, and those who 
have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time. . . . 
He also was in Rome in the time of Anicetus, and turned many 
from the heretics to the Church of God, preaching that he had 
received from the Apostles that one and only truth, which has 
been handed down by the Church. And there are those who 
heard from him that John the disciple of the Lord, on going to 
the bath in Ephesus, and seeing Cerinthus within, ran out of 
the bathhouse without bathing, and saying, "Let us fly lest 
even the bathhouse fall, as Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, 
is there." And Polycarp himself, when Marcion came into 
sight, and said, "Do you know us?" answered, "I know thee, 
the firstborn of Satan" (iii, 3, 4). 

To those presbyters who are in the churches it behooves us 
to listen, — to those who have succession from the Apostles, 
who also with the succession of the episcopate have received 
an assured gift of the truth, according to the pleasure of the 
Father (iv, 26, 2). 

It befits us to adhere to those who keep safely the teaching 
of the Apostles, and, with the order of the presbytery, hold 
forth sound speech and a blameless conversation, for the con- 
firmation and correction of others (iv, 26, 4). 

The Church raises presbyters such as the Prophet (Isaiah 



no The Historic Episcopate 

lx: 17, Septuagint version) speaks of, "I will give thee thy 
rulers in peace and thy overseers [episcopous] in righteous- 
ness " (iv, 26, 5). 

Where the gifts of the Lord are placed, there it befits us to 
learn the truth, from those who possess that succession of the 
Church, which is from the Apostles, and that which is sound 
and above reproach in behavior, and untainted and unspoiled 
in speech (iv, 25, 5). 

True knowledge is the teaching of the Apostles, and the 
ancient standing of the Church throughout the world, and the 
character of the body of Christ, according to the successions of 
bishops, to whom they intrusted that church which is in each 
place (iv, 33, 8). 

For all those [the heretics] are much later than the bishops, 
to whom the Apostles intrusted the churches (v, 20, 1). 

These doctrines the presbyters who were before us, who 
were taught by the Apostles, never handed down to thee. For 
I saw thee (while I was yet a boy, being in lower Asia, with 
Polycarp) performing splendidly in the royal court, and trying 
to stand well with him. For I remember what then happened 
better than things nearer our time, ... so that I can tell 
the very place where the blessed Polycarp sat and discoursed, 
and his goings out and his comings in, and the manner of his 
life, and the appearance of his body, and the discourses which 
he made to the multitude, and his familiarity with John as he 
told it, and with the others who had seen the Lord; and how he 
would recall their sayings, and what he had heard from them 
about the Lord and his miracles and his teaching, as from eye- 
witnesses of the Word of Life. Polycarp having received these 
things, told them all in agreement with the Scriptures (Epistle 
to Florinus, quoted by Eusebius, v, 20). 

Those presbyters who, before Soter, were presidents of the 
church which you now guide, — I speak of Anicetus and Pius, 
Hyginus and Telesphorus, — neither themselves observed 
[Easter] nor allowed this to those who were with them; and 
none the less they kept peace, though not themselves observing 
it, with those who came to them from other parishes, in which it 
was observed, although to observe it was then more offensive 
to those who did not. And neither at that time were any cast 
off on account of the form, but the presbyters before you, 
themselves not observing, sent the eucharist to those from the 
parishes which did. And the blessed Polycarp sojourning in 
Rome in the time of Anicetus, although they had some small 
differences about other things besides, quickly came to an 
understanding, not striving much with each other on this head. 
For neither was Anicetus able to persuade Polycarp not to 
observe what he always had observed along with John the 
disciple of our Lord, and the other Apostles with whom he 
had consorted; nor did Polycarp persuade Anicetus to observe 
it, as he said it behooved him to maintain the practice of the 
presbyters who were before him. And in this situation they 



From Senate to Monarch in 

communed with each other; and in the church Anicetus 
yielded the eucharist to Polycarp, evidently out of respect; 
and they parted in peace, all the church, both of those who 
observed it and those who did not, being at peace (Epistle to 
Victor, Bishop of Rome; quoted by Eusebius, v, 24). 

It will be observed that Ireneus never once mentions 
that threefold ministry, on which Ignatius, Cyprian and 
the Apostolical Constitutions lay such stress. His Church 
vocabulary seems to belong to an earlier stage of ecclesias- 
tical development. In these quotations he applies the 
term presbyter ten times to those whom he as often calls 
bishops. "In his language," says Dr. Lightfoot, "a 
presbyter is never designated a bishop, while on the other 
hand he very frequently speaks of a bishop as a presbyter. 
In other words, though he views the episcopate as a dis- 
tinct office from the presbytery, he does not regard it as a 
distinct order in the same sense in which the diaconate 
is a distinct order" (Philippians, p. 226). Even in his 
polite and conciliatory letter to Victor of Rome, who 
wanted to excommunicate those who did not agree with 
him about Easter observance, he calls the previous rulers 
of that church presbyters and nothing else. His references 
to those who in Asia had known the Apostles, describe 
them also as presbyters. The only place in which he 
seems to discriminate between the two offices is his ab- 
surd and misleading comment on the account of Paul's 
solemn meeting with the elders of the Ephesian church 
(Acts xx), where he says that Paul sent for "the bishops 
and presbyters from Ephesus and the other neighboring 
cities." That and the long quotation from the Third 
Book, as to Rome and Polycarp, are the only two passages 
which disclose his interest in upholding episcopacy. 

Yet he comes from that Asia to whose churches are 
addressed five of the Ignatian epistles, describing inci- 
dentally a state of things in which the distinction between 



ii2 The Historic Episcopate 

bishop and presbyter amounted almost to an article of 
faith, and the two terms are never treated as in the least 
degree interchangeable. 

On the testimony of Ireneus, more than that of any 
other father, must rest the case for Dr. Lightfoot's con- 
tention that monarchic episcopacy in the Asian churches 
dates from the Apostle John and has his sanction. The 
Ignatian epistles, as we have seen, do not say a word of 
such an origin of the Church order they are describing, and 
even commending as indispensable to the churches. Poly- 
carp, we have found, is rather a witness against it than 
for it. Ireneus, as himself a native of Asia and a younger 
contemporary of Polycarp, should be a first-rate witness 
on that side. But the value of a witness must depend 
upon his accuracy, his carefulness in dealing with the 
facts and his fullness. 

Ireneus obliges us to doubt his accuracy, w r hen he 
testifies to the establishment of monarchic episcopacy in 
the church of Rome by the Apostles. This Dr. Lightfoot 
himself discredits, and Dr. Salmon regards doubtfully. 
" Linus, Cletus, Clement," the latter says, "are commonly 
supposed to have been, after the Apostles, the first Bishops 
of Rome (see Ireneus, iii, 3), and, by the confession of 
everyone, were leading men in that church in the latter 
part of the first century." "We need not suppose that 
the name bishop was then distinctively used to denote the 
head of the church, nor are we bound to think that the 
line of separation between him and other presbyters was 
as marked as it became in later times." 1 So much the 
Dublin scholar concedes to the evidence of Clement and 
Hermas that the church in Rome was governed by its 
presbyters. 

As to carefulness in dealing with facts, we have already 

* Introduction to the New Testament, p. 411. 



From Senate to Monarch 113 

soon an instance in his comment upon Acts xx: 17, where 
he says that Paul sent for "the bishops and presbyters 
from Ephesus and the other neighboring cities." We have 
yet another in his advocacy of his pet idea that our Lord's 
earthly ministry did not terminate in his thirty-third 
or thirty-fourth year, but extended nearly to his fiftieth. 
It is of this that he says that "all the presbyters testify, 
who throughout Asia had met with John the disciple of 
the Lord, that John had taught this" (Book II, 22, 5). 
No doubt he believed this; but who else does so? No- 
body else among the Fathers did. Yet he is as positive 
about it as he is as to "the Apostles" having made Poly- 
carp "Bishop of Smyrna," and far more explicit as to the 
grounds for his assertion. 

It is still worse with him as to the fullness of his testi- 
mony at the really critical points. Even as to Polycarp, 
all he has to tell us is that that good man had been made 
bishop in the church in Smyrna by the Apostles. He 
undoubtedly was a bishop — not the bishop — of the church 
in Smyrna, but whether made such by the Apostles may 
be doubted, as his martyrdom falls well past the middle 
of the century. If Eusebius is right in assigning A. D. 
166 as the date, and the tradition which makes him die 
in his eighty-sixth year be trustworthy, then he would 
be in his eighteenth year at the latest date that can be 
assigned for the death of John, and hardly would have 
entered upon the presbyterate at that age. If, with Dr. 
Salmon, we put his death eleven years earlier, it still 
looks doubtful. But Ireneus does not say "by the 
Apostle John"; he says "by the Apostles," which makes 
his statement more difficult still. 

Of another church in Asia he says: "Then again the 
church in Ephesus, founded by Paul, and having John 
abiding among them until the reign of Trajan, is a true 

8 



ii4 The Historic Episcopate 

witness of the tradition of the Apostles." If Ephesus is 
to take its place beside Rome and Smyrna in his argument, 
it must be because John appointed a bishop of that church, 
as "Peter and Paul" did for Rome, and "the Apostles" 
did for Smyrna. Why not name him? Was he Phy- 
gellus? Was he another John? Or was he "Gaius the 
beloved," whom John made the Bishop of Ephesus, by 
way of indicating that he had changed his mind since he 
wrote that Third Epistle, and by way of " casting out of 
the episcopate" (Clement's phrase) those " elders of the 
church in Ephesus" of whom Paul said that the Holy 
Ghost had "made them bishops" there? Why drive us 
to spurious documents, like those ascribed to Dorotheus 
and Hippolytus, or The Constitutions and Canons of the 
Holy Apostles, when so little effort of memory would have 
set the matter at rest, to the satisfaction of ourselves and 
Dr. Lightfoot? To me it seems that Ireneus knew the 
name of no monarchic bishop set up in Ephesus by John, 
and he was too honest to pretend that he did. 

"It must be carefully noticed," says Mr. H. T. Purchas, 
an Anglican writer, "that Ireneus promises lists of names 
and rests his argument upon his ability to produce such 
lists. What then is our surprise to find that he has only 
one such list to produce, viz., that of the church of Rome. 
1 It would be very tedious, ' he says, ' to reckon up the suc- 
cessions of all the churches/ and therefore he will put all 
heretics to confusion by giving the succession in ' the very 
great, very ancient, and universally known church, 
founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious 
Apostles, Peter and Paul.' He thus determines to rest 
his case on one church, viz., that of Rome, 'with which 
every church should agree.' Ireneus, however, was 
enough of a logician to perceive that one episcopal list 
was a production very far short of what he had promised. 



From Senate to Monarch 115 

He therefore tries to strengthen his case by adducing the 
church of Smyrna. Tolycarp also was not only instructed 
by the Apostles, and conversed with many who had seen 
Christ, but was also, by Apostles in Asia, appointed 
bishop of the church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my 
early youth.' This is an exceedingly interesting piece 
of information, but why is it so vague? When so much 
depended upon definite names, why does Ireneus men- 
tion only 'Apostles'? Who were these Apostles? Bishop 
Lightfoot pleads that the plural need not be pressed, 
and that St. John only is meant. But if Ireneus had 
meant St. John, he would assuredly have said so. . 
. . The very least that can be said is that Ireneus did 
not feel sure enough about St. John's connection with 
Polycarp to enable him to assign the latter's appointment 
to that Apostle. . . . 

"At the end of the same chapter Ireneus comes to the 
church of Ephesus. Here he is still more vague. He 
gives no succession of bishops at all. He merely says: 
1 Then again the church in Ephesus, founded by Paul, and 
having John remaining among them permanently until 
the times of Trajan, is a true witness of the tradition of 
the Apostles.' It is thus evident that Ireneus — the 
authority so confidently quoted in favor of a Johannine 
sanction of the episcopate, is, in fact, against it. If the 
facts, as he knew them, had been more favorable, he would 
assuredly have spoken in plainer and more decided lan- 
guage." 1 

We leave Ireneus of Lyons with sincere respect for the 
evident sincerity with which he abstains from overstate- 
ment, but with recognition of the controversial purpose 

1 Johannine Problems and Modern Needs (London, 1901, pp. 9-11). Mr. 
Purchas is an Episcopalian, holding that that is the providential government 
of the Church. But he declines to accept the kind of evidence which is offered 
for the existence of that form of government in the primitive Church. 



n6 The Historic Episcopate 

with which he handles his facts. And we find in his account 
of the state of affairs in Asia nothing but the poorest 
foundation for Dr. Lightfoot's theory of its early accept- 
ance of monarchic episcopacy from apostolic hands. 

III. Clement of Alexandria, Christian poet, philos- 
opher and teacher, was a contemporary of Ireneus, but 
probably about ten years younger. He was a presbyter 
of that great church and the head of its catechetical school 
in his later life. Like that of Ireneus, his language 
sometimes recalls the earlier usage of the Church, when 
bishop and presbyter were names of the same office, and 
when that and the office of deacon made up the church's 
list. "He speaks," says Dr. Lightfoot, "sometimes 
of two orders of the ministry, the presbyters and deacons; 
sometimes of three, the bishops, presbyters and deacons. 
Thus it would appear that even as late as the close of the 
second century the Bishop of Alexandria was regarded as 
distinct and yet not distinct from the presbytery." 1 
Thus in his principal work he says that "the presbyters 
preserve the bettering likeness of the Church; the deacons 
the serving." 

What especially concerns us here is the beautiful story 
he tells of the Apostle John and his labors in Asia. It is 
found in the forty-second chapter of his book: What Rich 
Man Is Saved f 

When, after the death of the tyrant [Domitian], he returned to 
Ephesus from the Isle of Patmos, he went, on being invited, to the 
neighboring places and peoples, in some places to appoint 
bishops, in others to constitute entire churches, in others yet 
to admit to the clergy anyone who was pointed out by the 
Spirit. And coming to a city not far [from Ephesus], whose 
name also some mention, after refreshing the brethren in other 

1 (Philippians, p. 224.) Harnack (Dogmengeschichte, I, 332 n.) says that "Clem- 
ent in his works mentions ecclesiastical officials very rarely, and bishops most 
rarely, as they do not generally belong to his conception of the Church, or 
merely as antitypes of the angelic orders. . . . Clement would not have 
expressed himself thus if the bishop's office had been at that time as much 
valued in Alexandria as in Rome and other churches of the west." 



From Senate to Monarch 117 

respects, and looking upon the bishop who had been placed 
over them all, seeing a young man superb in body and of a 
graceful face and earnest mind, he said, "This man I intrust 
to you with all seriousness, the church and Christ being wit- 
nesses." He received him and promised all that was asked; 
atul John repeated what he had said, and took witnesses, and 
returned to Ephesus. 

And the presbyter taking into his house the young man, 
who had been intrusted to him, raised him, restrained him, 
encouraged him, and finally baptized him. And afterwards he 
relapsed from the more abundant care and guardianship, as 
having bestowed upon him the perfect safeguard, the seal of 
the Lord. But he who had received relaxation of restraint 
before he was ready for it, fell under the corrupting influence of 
idle fellows of his own age, practised in evil. And first of all 
they led him on by many costly banquets; then somewhere 
and by night they bring him to share in robberies; and then 
they exhort him to participate in still graver crimes. And 
by littles grown used to such things, and through the greatness 
of his disposition, bolting like a hard-mouthed and powerful 
horse from the right road, and taking the bridle between his 
teeth, he was carried more quickly to destruction. And at 
last, despairing of salvation from God, he no longer set his mind 
on small things, but having committed some great crime, since 
he had destroyed himself once for all, he expected to suffer 
equally with the others. Having taken up the same fellows, 
and formed a robber-band of them, he was their fit captain, 
the most violent, bloody and savage of them all. 

In the meantime, some necessity having arisen, they send 
for John. And when he had disposed of the other matters, 
for which he came, he said, "Come now, O bishop, give me back 
the deposit which I and the Saviour intrusted with you in 
presence of the church you are over." But the bishop at 
first was distressed, thinking himself charged with money he 
never had received, and could neither believe about what he 
had not got, nor disbelieve John. But when John said, "I 
ask of you the young man, and the soul of thy brother," the 
presbyter, sighing deeply and shedding tears, said "That man 
is dead!" ''What! and by what death?" "He is dead to 
God," he said; "he turned out wicked and abandoned, and at 
last a robber; and now instead of the church he occupies the 
mountain, with a band like himself." Then the Apostle rent 
his clothes, and after much lamentation, smiting his head 
[exclaimed]: "I left a fine keeper of his brother's soul. But 
bring me a horse, and get me a guide for the road." 

He went off as he was from the very church. Arriving at 
the place, he was taken prisoner by the outpost of the robbers, 
neither attempting to escape nor begging anything from them, 
but calling out: " I have come for him! Take me to your chief!" 
And he, armed as he was, awaited him. But when he recog- 
nized John approaching him, he took to flight for shame. And 



n8 The Historic Episcopate 

he [John] pursued him with all his might, forgetting his own 
age, and calling out: "Why do you fly me your own father, my 
son, though I am unarmed and an old man? Pity me, my child; 
do not fear me. You still have hope of eternal life. I, if it 
be necessary, will answer for you to Christ. If need be, I will 
gladly undergo thy death, as the Lord bore death for us. I 
will give my soul for you. Stop! Believe Christ hath sent 
me." And he hearing this, stopped with downcast looks; 
then he threw away his arms and began to weep bitterly, and 
embraced the old man, excusing his crimes with lamentation as 
best he was able, being baptized a second time with tears, and 
hiding only his right hand. And he, pledging himself and as- 
suring him that he has found pardon for him with Christ, 
imploring him on his knees, and kissing his right hand as cleansed 
by his repentance, brought him back to the church. And 
entreating God with plentiful prayers, and agonizing along with 
him in continuous fastings, and instructing his mind by the 
varied charms of his discourses, he rested not, it is said, until 
he had restored him to the church. 1 

Thus to Clement of Alexandria also there clings the 
usage of the speech of an earlier age. His bishop is still 
a presbyter, and the little touch, "who had been placed 
over them all," is needed to adapt the story to his own 
times. Most noticeable is the use of the term " bishop" 
in closest relation to the presbyter's pastoral work and 
its responsibilities. It is to him as bishop that John in- 
trusts the young man. It is from him as bishop that the 
Apostle requires "the soul of thy brother." The title 
of bishop designates what was most Christian in the work 
of the Christian presbyter, and the farthest removed from 
the varied but mostly unspiritual activities of the diocesan 
prelate of later times. Would the Apostle John have 
selected for this trust anyone who now bears the name of 
bishop, or who has done so for centuries past? 

Origen of Alexandria, the more famous pupil of Clement, 
belonged to a time when even in Alexandria the regard 
for the bishop and the deference to his office had increased 
notably. This is seen by the action of the patriarch 

1 Clementis Alexandrini Liber, Quis dives salutem consequi possitf perpetuo 
commentario Illustratus a Carolo Segario (Utrecht, 1816), pp. 106-115. 



From Senate to Monarch no 

Demetrius refusing to allow him to return to the city after 
his irregular ordination by a synod of bishops and pres- 
byters in Palestine, and his undertaking to depose him in 
a synod of bishops alone (A. D. 231). Origen insists on 
the value of orthodox tradition much in the fashion of 
Ireneus: "The preaching handed over by the Apostles 
to the Church is preserved by the order of succession, and 
remains in the churches to the present: that alone is to 
be accepted as truth which is in no respect out of harmony 
with ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition." I have men- 
tioned him as the oldest witness to the existence of 
the Ignatian epistles, or at least to the Curetonian recen- 
sion of them. 

IV. Tertullian of Carthage was almost exactly the 
contemporary of Clement of Alexandria, but his very 
opposite in spirit and method. He is the first Latin 
father, wTiting at a time when Greek was still the language 
of the churches of Rome and Lyons, no less than of Corinth 
and Alexandria. After having been a presbyter of the 
church in Carthage, he went over to the Montanists, and 
died in their communion some time after A. D. 220. While 
Clement tried to displace the heretical gnosis by a Chris- 
tian gnosis, Tertullian showed a violent antipathy to the 
very name. It was this which carried him over to the 
Montanists, with their dependence upon authoritative 
revelations, and their moral rigorism. Of the works pre- 
served, most were written during his Catholic period, 
while his great work on " Ecstasy," in defence of Mon- 
tanism, has perished. In his Apologetic for the Christians, 
written about A. D. 197, he describes Christian discipline 
and worship: 

We are one body through agreement in religion, and unity of 
discipline, and the bond of hope. We come together into a 
meeting and assembly, that we may, as it were, form a troop 



120 The Historic Episcopate 

and beset God with our prayers. Thia violence is well pleasing 
to God. We pray also for the emperors, for their ministers 
and men in power, for the welfare of the world, for the peace of 
the empire, for the delay of the end. We are brought together 
for the reading of the divine Scriptures, if anything in the char- 
acter of the times compels us to give warning or thanks. At 
any rate we nourish our faith with holy words, elevate our hopes, 
confirm our confidence, and none the less strengthen our dis- 
cipline by impressing the precepts; there also are exhortations, 
reproofs and divine censure. For judgment is pronounced 
with much gravity, as by those who are sure they are in the 
sight of God; and it is a very serious anticipation of judgment 
to come, if anyone has so offended as to be excluded from fellow- 
ship in prayer and in meeting, and from all holy intercourse. 
There preside certain approved elders, who have obtained this 
honor not by payment, but by repute. Also if there is any 
kind of chest, it is collected not in fees, as though it were a 
gathering for worship by contract. Each contributes a mod- 
erate sum once a month, or when he chooses, and only if he 
chooses and is able; for nobody is under constraint, but gives 
of his own will. These are, as it were, the deposits of charity, 
for they are not spent on eating and drinking, and thankless 
eating houses, but on feeding and burying the poor, on boys 
and girls destitute of both property and parents, on old folk 
kept at home, and also on shipwrecked people; and whoever 
are in the mines, the islands, the prisons, if it be for the cause of 
God, are supported for the sake of their confession of him. 

They [the Apostles] founded in the several cities churches, 
from which the rest have borrowed the root and seeds of doctrine, 
and do daily borrow these, that they may become churches. 
And through this they themselves will be accounted apostolic, 
as the offspring of the apostolic churches. Every sort of thing 
must be judged according to its origin. Therefore, whatever 
the number and size of the churches, there is but that one first 
Church from the Apostles, and all are from it. Thus all are 
primitive, and all are apostolic, since all hold with the unity. 
The communion of peace, the name of brotherhood, the ex- 
change of hospitality, are rights which no other principle con- 
trols than the common tradition of the same mystery. Thence 
we enter our demurrer, that if the Lord Jesus sent Apostles 
to preach, other preachers than Christ has appointed are not 
to be received (De Prcescriptione, Cap. 30) . 

The Apostles, having obtained the power of the Holy Spirit 
promised for virtues and eloquence, after they had instituted 
churches throughout Judaea, through the faith in Jesus Christ 
which they testified, then setting out into the world, promul- 
gated the same teaching of this faith to the Gentiles. 

Let the heretics publish the origin of their churches, unroll 
the fist of their bishops, so descending by successions from the 
beginning that that first bishop had as his source and predeces- 
sor some one of the Apostles, or of the apostolic men who 



From Senate to Monarch 121 

adhered to the Apostles. For in this way the apostolic churches 
present their list, as the church of the Smyrnacans reports 
Polycarp appointed by John, as that of the Romans reports 
Clement ordained by Peter. Furthermore the others also 
bring forward those whom they have to show as appointed to 
the episcopate by the Apostles, shoots of the apostolic seed 
(De Prcescriptione, Cap. 32). 

Run over the apostolic churches, in which the very thrones 
of the Apostles still rule in their places; among which their 
authentic epistles are read, echoing the voice and representing 
the face of each one of them. Nearest to thee is Achaea; you 
have Corinth. If thou art not far from Macedonia, thou hast 
Philippi, hast Thessalonica. If thou canst pass to Asia, thou 
hast Ephesus. But if thou art close to Italy, thou hast Rome, 
whence authority comes to us also. How blessed that great 
church, where Apostles poured forth the whole doctrine with 
their blood, where Peter equaled his Lord in suffering, where 
Paul is crowned with the death of John, where the Apostle 
John, after escaping harm in being plunged into boiling oil, is 
banished to an island. See what it learned, what it taught, 
what hospitality it has shown to the African churches also 
(De Prcescriptione, Cap. 36). 

The right of conferring it [baptism], indeed, the chief priest, 
that is the bishop, possesses; then the presbyter and the deacon, 
yet not without the authority of the bishop, for the honor of 
the church being preserved, peace is preserved. Otherwise 
laymen also have the right (for that which is equally received 
may be equally given), unless the term "disciples" (John iv: 2) 
denote at once bishops, priests or deacons. The saying of the 
Lord must not be hidden from any. Wherefore baptism, which 
is equally derived from God, may be administered by all. But 
how much more incumbent on laymen the duty of reverence and 
modesty! Since those things befit persons of higher rank, let 
them not take upon them the duty assigned to the bishops (De 
Baptismate, Cap. 17). 

It will be observed that Tertullian has nothing new, 
nothing of his own, to tell us about the episcopal succes- 
sion in Rome and Smyrna. He leans on Ireneus, as 
Ireneus probably leaned on Hegesippus, and is only 
more explicit in saying it was John who appointed Poly- 
carp the Bishop of Smyrna. Of that fact Ireneus does 
not profess to know; and Tertullian had fewer oppor- 
tunities for knowing it. Like Ireneus, he sets out with a 
great announcement of what the orthodox churches have 
to show in the matter of the successions of bishops. Like 



122 The Historic Episcopate 

Ireneus, he stops with Rome and Smyrna; and can tell 
us no name of a Bishop of Ephesus appointed by the Apos- 
tle John. Yet, like Ireneus, he is quite ready to maintain 
the Johannine origin of the episcopate. Writing against 
Marcion, he says: "We have churches also nourished by 
John. For although Marcion rejects his Revelation, yet 
the order of bishops, if traced to its origin, will be found 
to rest on the authority of John." What then of the 
establishment of the episcopate in Rome by Peter and 
Paul, long before John's activity in Asia Minor? 

In Tertullian the sacerdotal theory of the Christian 
ministry finds expression. The bishop is a priest (sacer- 
dos), even high priest (summus sacerdos) and supreme 
pontiff (pontifex maximus) . The presbyters are a priestly 
order (sacerdotalis ordo) . Yet at other times he recalls the 
fact that Christians as such are priests through the vo- 
cation of Christ (Certe sacerdotes sumus a Christo vocati). 

V. Cyprian of Carthage (A. D. c. 200-258) was a man of 
such heroic mold, and of such Christian devoutness, as 
must inspire respect. But he did so much to corrupt the 
simplicity of the gospel, and to secure acceptance for 
those legalistic conceptions of the Church and of Chris- 
tianity which at last drove the Teutonic churches into 
revolt against Latin leadership, that we must regard him 
as having achieved more of harm than of benefit to the 
cause of the Master. 

He was a Carthaginian lawyer and a pagan until middle 
life. The generous use he made of his wealth after his 
conversion and his imposing qualities as a leader brought 
the people of the church in Carthage to raise him to the 
rank of bishop within two years after his conversion. 
This was a violation of the rule laid down by the Apostle 
Paul (1 Timothy hi: 6), and it was opposed by five of the 
nine presbyters of the church. Their resistance seems to 



From Senate to Monarch 123 

have produced in him an antagonism to their order, and 
of their order to him, which lasted while he lived, and 
colored his measures as well as his opinions. He took 
from the presbyters all share in the control of the church's 
revenues, maintained the rights of the people to elect their 
bishop without consulting them, and generally used the 
popular element to uphold the bishop at the expense of 
this intermediate class. This monarchic policy is familiar 
to the students of civil history. 

The ten years of his episcopate were years of storm and 
stress. He had no heresies of importance to contend with. 
The Montanists of Carthage, with whom Tertullian had 
fraternized, seem to have been a feeble and dwindling 
remnant, who could be left to themselves and to time. 
The Manichaeans did not enter Africa until a generation 
after his death. Where he talks of heresy, he most com- 
monly means schism, for to him separation from the 
Church on any ground was a renunciation of essential 
Christian principle. 

Two disciplinary controversies agitated the African 
churches of his time, and on both he managed to get on 
the wrong side, and to commit his friends to it. Those 
"confessors," who either had escaped death during a per- 
secution, or were still in prison expecting death, had been 
recognized as having the right to absolve those who had 
lapsed, and to restore them to the bosom of the Church. 
This was doubly offensive to Cyprian, as an invasion of 
the field of authority by a sentiment, and because his old 
opponents, the five recalcitrant presbyters, made common 
cause with the confessors in asserting the right. In op- 
posing this irregular form of restoring the lapsed, however, 
he overshot the mark, and not merely reserved to the 
bishop the power to absolve and restore, but declared that 
even he could not do this until the offender had undergone 



124 The Historic Episcopate 

years of penitence, and only then in the hour of death. 
He afterwards backed down from this rigorism to some 
extent; but by maintaining it he gave currency to the 
conceptions of Church discipline, which afterwards, in the 
Donatist schism, rent the orthodox churches of Africa for 
two centuries. 

The other controversy was as to the validity of baptism 
administered by heretics, where the form employed was 
open to no objection. In Cyprian's view, the orthodox 
episcopally governed Church was the sole possessor of the 
gifts and activity of the Holy Spirit, and no valid baptism 
could be administered except by its ministers. So he 
had no choice but to reject heretical (including schis- 
matic) baptism. Through his influence the African 
churches were formally committed to his view by the 
unanimous vote of eighty-seven bishops in a synod 
held at Carthage, A. D. 256. The contrary view, main- 
tained by Stephen, Bishop of Rome, was declared that 
of the church in the great Synod of Aries (A. D. 314), ■ 
and is accepted by implication in the nineteenth canon of 
the Council of Nice, which enjoins that the Paulianists — 
who did not baptize in the name of the Father, Son and 
Spirit — should not be admitted to the Church without 
rebaptism. So the zealot for the unity of the Church laid 
the foundations of the worst of schisms ; and the cynosure 
of second century orthodoxy is repudiated by the great 
synods. 

His position in the Church was a commanding one. To 
him, and not to those bishops of Rome who were his 
contemporaries, came the ecclesiastical problems of Spain 
and even Italy, as well as of Africa, for his decision. He 

1 De Afris, quod propria lege utuntur, ut rebaptizent, placuit ut si ad eccles- 
iam aliquis de haeresi venerit, interrogent eum symbolum; et si perviderint 
cum in Patre, et Filio et Spiritu Sancto esse baptizatum, manus ei tantum 
imponatur ut accipiat Spiritum Sanctum. Quod si interrogatus, non respond- 
ent hanc Trinitatem, baptizetur (Synod of Aries: Canon 13). 



From Senate to Monarch 125 

established one Bishop of Rome in possession of his see, 
against an able and dangerous rival. He opposed another 
unreservedly on the question of heretical baptism. He 
upheld in theory the equality of all bishops, but made him- 
self the metropolitan of the whole African region, from 
Tripoli to the Atlantic Ocean. Synod after synod met at 
Carthage to record his judgments as their own. Yet as 
Laud's seven years in the English primacy ruined the 
national Church, drove Puritanism into armed revolt, 
and laid the lasting foundations of Nonconformity, so 
Cyprian's ten years prepared for Africa an age of church 
strife over secondary questions more bitter, more un- 
christian and more destructive than any other part of the 
empire endured from the agitation of the really great 
questions of Christian doctrine. Heylin was right in 
calling Laud "Cyprianus Anglicus." And the two re- 
semble each other in other ways. They both look back 
upon their public careers with an evident satisfaction, 
and regard their opponents with an outspoken scorn which 
is more Roman than Christian. They both belong to the 
type of churchman who is personally humble and officially 
insolent, and is sure that some sort of wickedness underlies 
resistance to his plans and ideas. 

Cyprian's theory of the Church is elaborated in his 
treatise De Unitate Ecclesice. He sees in it a visible 
corporation, taking its origin from the episcopal office. 
It is " constituted of bishop, clergy and all who have 
standing within it." It is " founded upon the bishops, and 
its every action is controlled by these appointed rulers, 
by a divine law." Only those " remain without who 
ought to be cast out if they were within it." As the Apos- 
tles did not withdraw from Christ along with the multi- 
tude, so the Church is made of "the people united to their 
priest, the flock adhering to their shepherd. Whence 



126 The Historic Episcopate 

you should learn that the bishop is in the Church, and the 
Church is in the bishop; and if anyone be not with the 
bishop, he is not in the Church." They who have not the 
Church as their mother, have not God as their father. 
Those who separate from the Church share in the sin and 
guilt of Judas. Even if they are put to death for the Name, 
they are not martyrs. They are worse than those who 
apostatize under persecution, as these may be restored 
to the Church's communion through repentance. 

The beginning of the Church was in our Lord's declara- 
tion to Peter, through whom even the rest of the Apostles, 
and consequently all the bishops, derive their authority. 
But the Bishop of Rome is not more the successor of 
Peter than is the bishop of every other church founded 
by him, or even by any other Apostle. As for the other 
offices, they are the creation of the Apostles after the 
Ascension. The episcopate alone goes back to our Lord's 
acts and words. 

Besides the conception of the Church as a visible cor- 
poration, within which alone, and through whose bishops 
alone, the Holy Spirit confers grace upon men, we owe to 
Cyprian the conception of the succession of those bishops 
to the authority and functions of the Apostles. Clement 
of Rome discusses the activity of the Apostles in establish- 
ing the Christian ministry in terms which exclude this 
notion. The Ignatian Epistles make the presbyters, and 
not the bishops, the successors of the Apostles. Tertul- 
lian, Ireneus and Origen lay stress on the succession of 
bishops (or presbyters) in the churches founded by the 
Apostles, as a guarantee of the truth of the Christian 
gospel against the half-pagan doctrines of the Gnostics. 
It is not the " grace of orders," but the " grace of truth" 
{charisma veritatis) on which they insist as connected with 
this succession. But Cyprian shifts the stress from truth 



From Senate to Monarch 127 

to power, claiming that the bishops have succeeded to the 
authority and work of the Apostles. "It is the manifest 
judgment," he says, "of Jesus Christ in sending out his 
Apostles, and intrusting the power given him by his 
Father to them alone, to whom we have succeeded in 
governing the Church of our Lord with the same authority, 
and baptizing believers." "Christ says to the Apostles, 
and by this to all the prelates who succeeded the Apostles 
by vicarious ordination, 'He who heareth you, heareth 



me.'" 



Manifesta est sententia Jesu Christi Apostolos suos mittentis 
et ipsis solis potestatem a Patre sibi datam permittentis, 
quibus nos successimus, eadem potestate ecclesiam Domini 
gubernantes et credentium fidem baptiz antes. 

Christus dicit ad Apostolos, ac per hoc ad omnes prsepositos, 
qui Apostolis vicaria ordinatione succeedunt, "Qui audit vos, 
audit me." 

This was as much a novelty as was the heresy of Mar- 
cion. It made its way, however, in the western Church, 
where the Latin atmosphere naturally inclined theologians 
to legalistic conceptions of Christian doctrine. The 
eastern theologians of this age, not excepting the Apos- 
tolical Constitutions, know nothing of it, and the Eastern 
Church has adapted its teaching very slowly to it. 

Cyprian is no "papist." But he helped to prepare 
for the imperial rule of the popes, by his exaltation of the 
monarchic principle in the churches, by his insistence on a 
visible, human center of unity, and by establishing an 
authority over Roman Africa more masterful than any 
Bishop of Rome had exercised in Italy. As Dr. Mohler 
says, "the pope was only awaiting the summons to ap- 
pear," when Cyprian and his like had completed their 
work. His bishop is a local pope, invested with such an 
unlimited power (licentia) as our Lord employed in working 
his miracles, or as the Roman emperor exercised in the 



128 The Historic Episcopate 

army and in the state. He is responsible to nobody so 
long as his orthodoxy is above suspicion, and then only to 
his brethren in the episcopate. He is the sole possessor 
of the priesthood (sacerdotium) , with power to offer the 
sacrifice of the eucharist, to exercise discipline with the 
assent of the people, to ordain presbyters and deacons 
with — and sometimes without — the same assent, to re- 
move the unworthy from office, to control the finances 
either directly or through the agents he selects. So far as 
he associates other clerics with him in any of these things, 
it is of his own choice; and they act as his deputies, and 
not by any right of office. Toward other bishops he 
holds the place of a member of a great association, whose 
unity and agreement make the Church one in all the earth. 
No bishop should be admitted into this association with- 
out the approval of the rest, or at least of those of his own 
province. It is on this assent, rather than any laying on of 
hands that he insists as regards a bishop's induction into 
office. While he mentions that ceremony in his account 
of the consecration of Sabinus as Bishop of Merida in 
Spain, 1 he is silent about it in detailing the claims which 
his friend Cornelius had to recognition as Bishop of 
Rome. 2 From other sources we have reason to doubt if it 
was used in Rome. 

VI. Dionysius of Alexandria (ob. 265), like Clement and 
his own teacher, Origen, stood at the head of the cate- 
chetical school, which gave the Christians of that learned 
city standing among its scholars. Unfortunately his 



1 Manus ei in locum Basilidis imponeretur {Epistl. LXVII, Cap. V). 

2 Factus est Cornelius episcopus de Dei et Chrsti ejus judicio, de clericonim 
paene omnium testimonio, de plebis quae tunc adfuit suffragio, et de sacerdotum 
antiquorum et bonorum virorum collegio, cum nemo ante se factus est, cum 
Fabiani locus, id est cum locus Petri et gradus cathedrae sacerdotalis vacaret; 
quo occupato de Dei voluntate atque omnium nostrum consensione firmato, 
quisquis jam episcopus fieri voluerit, foris fiat necesse est, nee habeat ecclesi- 
asticam ordinationem qui qui ecclesiae non tenet unit at em (Epistl. LV, Cap. 
VID. 



From Senate to Monarch 129 

writings were only such as were called out by some tem- 
porary need, and they have perished with the exception 
of some quotations. These show us a keen intelligence, a 
statesmanlike grasp of Church problems, and an inde- 
pendence of judgment, which make us regret that we have 
not more from his pen. He pleaded for moderation and 
conciliation in both the controversies, in which Cyprian 
dispensed with both. His argument from the style of 
the Apocalypse, that it could not have been the work of 
the Apostle John, is admirable, though mistaken. He 
interests us here through a passage in a short work, On 
the Gospels, written in refutation of the Millenarianism of 
Nepos, "a bishop in Egypt," as Eusebius calls him. 
Dionysius says: 

When I was at Arsinoe, where, as you know, this dogma has 
been current for a long time, so that even schisms and apos- 
tasies of entire churches took place, I called together the pres- 
byters and teachers of the brethren in the villages (komais), 
such brethren as wished being present also, and we exhorted 
them to make a test of the doctrine in public. And when 
they brought to me the book as invincible armor and fortress, 
I sat with them for three days, from morning till evening, and 
I attempted to refute what was written in it. Then also I was 
delighted with the steadfastness, the love of truth, and the 
docility and intelligence of the brethren. ... At length 
the originator and leader of this teaching, named Coracio, in 
the hearing of all the brethren who were present, confessed 
and declared to us that he would no longer adhere to it, or 
discuss it, or mention it, or teach it, as he was sufficiently 
taken with what had been said against it. And of the rest of 
the brethren, some rejoiced in the conference, and in the con- 
ciliation and unanimity toward all. 1 

To make this quotation intelligible, I must anticipate 
part of what I shall say in a later chapter of the social 
structure of Egyptian society. It was not a country of 
cities in the Greek and Roman sense, but of districts, 
called nomes, each with a considerable center of govern- 
ment, trade and population, but populated elsewhere by 

1 Ensebii Historia Eccletiastica, Lib. VII, Cap. 24, 

9 



130 The Historic Episcopate 

the residents of villages, such as were rare in Asia, Greece 
or Italy. Dionysius finds these villages possessed of 
churches, which are in charge of presbyters, and has 
nothing to tell us of any higher Church authority over 
them. He mentions no " Bishop of Arsinoe," although 
some modern writers make Nepos himself to have filled 
that office, possibly by way of explaining the neglect by 
Dionysius of the bishop of the nome. It is not Nepos, 
however, but Coracio, who represents the Millenarian 
doctrine in the Arsinoi'tic nome. "At the close of the 
second century," says Dr. Lightfoot, "when every con- 
siderable church in Europe and Asia appears to have had 
its bishop, the only representative of the episcopal order 
in Egypt was the Bishop of Alexandria. It was Demetrius 
first (190-233), as Eutychius informs us, who appointed 
three other bishops, to which number his successor Her- 
aclas added twenty more" (Philippians, p. 230). 

A Bishop of Alexandria in the third century was less 
likely to stumble at finding churches ruled simply by 
presbyters than if he were a bishop in Asia or Italy. 
Jerome, writing in the next century, says of that see: 

In Alexandria, from the time of the Evangelist Mark to those 
of Bishops Heraclas and Dionysius, the presbyters always 
called one bishop chosen from among themselves, and placed 
in a higher rank. Just as if an army should make a general, 
or the deacons were to choose from among themselves whom 
they know to be diligent, and call him archdeacon. 1 

Many and ingenious attempts have been made to break 
the force of this statement. Some would have Jerome to 
be merely emphasizing the freedom of choice exercised by 
the presbyters of Alexandria in selecting a bishop from 
among themselves, as though that were pertinent to the 
matter in hand, and were not the known usage of the 

1 Migne's Patrologia Latina, xxii, 1194. 



From Senate to Monarch 131 

churches generally; or as though there had been some 
change in that respect about the year A. D. 232. What 
Jerome meant is shown by the chronicle of the see of 
Alexandria, written by its archbishop Eutychius in the 
tenth century. He writes in Arabic, and his work was 
published in 1658 by John Selden and Edward Pococke, 
with a Latin translation by the latter. I shall follow, 
however, the translation made by Abraham Ecchellensis 
in his Eutychius Vindicatus (1661) : 

Mark the Evangelist along with the Patriarch Hananias ap- 
pointed twelve presbyters to be with the patriarch, so that 
when he died they might choose one of the twelve, and the other 
eleven presbyters should lay their hands on his head and bless 
him, and constitute him patriarch. Then they chose some man 
of eminent virtues, and made him presbyter along with them- 
selves, in place of him who had been raised to the patriarchate, 
so that there always might be twelve. Nor did this custom of 
the presbyters of Alexandria constituting the patriarch from 
those twelve presbyters cease until the time of the patriarch 
Alexander, who was of the number of the three hundred and 
eighteen [bishops at the Council of Nice]. For he forbade the 
presbyters to constitute the patriarch, and gave orders that on 
the decease of a patriarch, the bishops should come together and 
constitute a patriarch. He gave orders also that on the death 
of a patriarch they should choose any man preeminent in virtues 
from any region, or some one of the twelve presbyters, or any- 
one else whose character satisfied them, and him they consti- 
tuted patriarch. And the old custom of presbyters constituting 
the patriarch by presbyters ceased, and the power of constituting 
a patriarch was vested in the bishops. 1 

Some object that Eutychius was very ill informed as 
to the history of the early Church, and even of his own see, 

1 Constituit enim Marcus Evangelista cum Hanania patriarcha XII presby- 
teros, qui adessent patriarchal, ut, decedente patriarcha, eligerent unum ex 
xii presbyteris, et imponerent reliqui manus suas capiti ejus, et benedicerent 
eum, et constituerent eum patriarcham. Dein eligerent virum aliquem virtu- 
tibus praestantem, illumque sufficerent presbyterum secum, loco ejus, qui 
patriarcha suffectus est, ut essent perpetui xii. Neque desit mos ille presby- 
terorum Alexandria? constituendi patriarchum ex iis xii presbyteris usque ad 
tempus Alexandri patriarchal, qui erat ex numero CCC XVIII; is enim vetuit, 
ne presbyteri constituerent patriarcham. Pra^cepit quoque, ut mortuo patri- 
archa convenient episcopi et patriarcham constituerent. Pra^cepit etiam, 
ut defuncto patriarcha, eligerent ex quacunque regione virum aliquem virtutibus 
praecellentem, sive aliquem ex illis xii presbyteris, sive alius cujus placeat con- 
ditio, et ilium constituerent patriarcham; cessavitque antiquus mos consti- 
tuendi patriarcham a presbyteris, facta est potestas penes episcopos constituendi 
patriarcham. (Migne'a Patrologie Grecque-Latine, Tome cxi, 903.) 



132 The Historic Episcopate 

so that he has made some surprising blunders in his 
chronicle. He had, however, access to the archives of 
his own church; and the points on which he is most likely 
to be correct are those on which early usage differed from 
that with which he was familiar, and was of a kind which 
he must have thought not very creditable to the see he 
occupied. And he is confirmed by Jerome, writing six 
centuries earlier. "The authority," says Dr. Lightfoot, 
"of a writer so inaccurate as Eutychius, if it had been 
unsupported, would have had no great weight; but, as we 
have seen, this is not the case" (Philippians, p. 231, note). 
"The priests of Alexandria," says Monsignor Duchesne, 
"in replacing their dead bishop not only elected, but also 
consecrated his successor. This custom no doubt dated 
from a time when Egypt had no church but that of Alex- 
andria. It would not be surprising to find that the same 
circumstances led to the same results in Antioch, Rome and 
Lyons, and in fact in every place where the local churches 
had a very wide jurisdiction." 

On one point Eutychius and Jerome differ. Jerome 
puts the change from the earlier usage at the patriarchate 
of Heraclas and Dionysius. Heraclas was patriarch 
A. D. 233-249; Dionysius A. D. 249-265. I take it that he 
did not know exactly when the presbyters ceased to con- 
stitute the patriarch, but gave the date between A. D. 233 
and A. D. 265 as a safe one. Eutychius, writing with the 
records before him, puts it fifty years later. Dr. Light- 
foot thinks that "the extension of episcopacy to the pro- 
vincial towns of Egypt" in the first half of the third cen- 
tury "paved the way for a change in the mode of appoint- 
ing and ordaining the Patriarch of Alexandria. But be- 
fore this time it was a matter of convenience, and, almost 
of necessity, that the Alexandrian presbyters should them- 
selves ordain their chief." 



From Senate to Monarch 133 

VII. The collection of ecclesiastical forms and enact- 
ments called The Constitutions and Canons of the Holy 
■annot be dated earlier than the middle of the 
third century, although it works over earlier materials, 
such as the Didache, into conformity with the usages of 
its own date, and so as to present a different and far 
more complex system of Church order. The longer re- 
cension of the Ignatian epistles borrows freely from this 
work, and, like that, lies under the suspicion of Arianiz- 
ing. 1 

The Ignatian and Cyprianic theory of the monarchic 
episcopate is here elaborated into a system of law, which 
exercised a notable influence upon the subsequent develop- 
ment of the Church, especially through the eighty-five 
canons appended to the last book. The Council of 
Trullus (Constantinople), which rejected the Constitu- 
tions as heretical, A. D. 692, accepted these canons as 
apostolic. By this decision the Greek Church stands to 
this day. For centuries these directions as to the duties 
of bishops, presbyters, deacons, readers and singers were 
regarded as emanating from the Apostles, as truly as any 
part of the Xew Testament, and proposals were made to 
admit them into the canon. From the fourth century 
downward they played the same part as did the False 
Decretals from the ninth. As these built up the author- 
ity of the papacy by tracing it back to the early Bishops of 
Rome, beginning with Peter, so those threw the glamour 
of a false antiquity around an episcopal system which 
had been evolved in the third and fourth centuries. 

Roman Catholic scholars — Bellarmin, Baronius, Peta- 

1 The text first appeared in J. B. Cotelier's Sanctorum Patrum qui Temporibus 
Apostolorum floruerunt Opera (Paris, 1672). Whiston's translation for his Primi- 
Christianity Revived (London, 1711-1712) is reprinted with revision in 
The Work Claiming to Be "The Constitutions of the Holy Apostles," Including 
"The Canons"; irith a Prize Essay Upon Their Origin and Contents [by Otto 
Karsten Krabbe]. Translated from the German by Irah Chase, D.D. (New- 
York and Philadelphia, 1848). 



134 The Historic Episcopate 

vius and Tillemont — agreed with Protestants generally 
in pronouncing them apocryphal. Their only friends in 
western Christendom have been Anglican champions of 
monarchic episcopacy, who have shown them no small 
kindness. Bishop Montagu (1625) maintained that they 
were the work of Clement of Rome. Bishop Pearson 
(1672) held that the Constitutions were collected out of the 
teachings of the Apostles and the Apostolic Fathers, and 
that they exhibited the character of the apostolic age. 
Bishop Beveridge (1673) ascribed them to Clement of 
Alexandria. Dr. Isaac Barrow (ob. 1677) quoted the 
Constitutions as "a very ancient book, and setting forth 
the most ancient traditions of the Church." Dr. John 
Grabe (1700) believed the whole work was collected out 
of the traditions the churches had received from the 
Apostles, and that it was compiled before A. D. 120. 
William Whiston (1711), not in the interests of episcopacy, 
but in those of Arianism, undertook to prove that the 
Constitutions "are the most sacred of the canonical books 
of the New Testament," and "are no other than the 
original laws and doctrines of the gospel." R. Wedge- 
wood (1851) reiterated this absurd claim. Benjamin 
Shaw in Drs. Smith and Cheetham's Dictionary of Chris- 
tian Antiquities (1876), says all he can for Bishop Beve- 
ridge's view of the antiquity of the canons, 1 while admit- 
ting that Roman Catholic scholars — Bishop Hefele and 
Professors Von Drey and Bickell — reject them as a rep- 
resentative of apostolic tradition. 

As the canons generally are regarded as the oldest part 
of the work, it is worth while to notice how they em- 
phasize the threefold ministry, and at the same time we 
are to remember that thousands of Christians in the later 

1 Codex Canonum Ecclesioe Primitives Vindicatus ac Illustratus. Auctore 
Guilielmo Beveregio (London, 1678). New edition in two volumes, Oxford, 
1848. 



From Senate to Monarch 135 

patristic ape believed that they were injunctions laid upon 
the Church by the Apostles. Twenty-seven of the eighty- 
five canons mention bishop, presbyters and deacons; 
nine others the bishop and the presbyters; sixteen others 
the bishop alone. I shall quote six: 

I. Let a Bishop be ordained by two or three Bishops. 

II. Let a Presbyter be ordained by one Bishop; as also a 
Deacon and the rest of the Clergy. 

XXXV. The Bishops of each Province ought to know who 
is the chief among them, and to esteem him as their head, and 
not to do any great thing without his consent; but everyone 
to manage only the affairs of his own parish, and the places 
subject to it. . . . 

XL. Let not the Presbyters and Deacons do anything with- 
out the consent of the Bishop; for it is he who is intrusted with 
the people of God, and will be required to give an account of 
their souls. . . . 

XLI. We command that the Bishop have power over the 
goods of the church; for if he be intrusted with the precious 
souls of men, much more ought he to give direction about 
goods, that, under his authority, they all be distributed by the 
Presbyters and Deacons to those who are in want, and be ad- 
ministered in the fear of God with all pious caution. . . . 

L. If any Bishop or Presbyter do not perform three im- 
mersions of one initiation, but one immersion into the death 
of Christ, let him be deposed; for the Lord did not say, "Bap- 
tize into my death"; but, "Go ye and make disciples of all 
nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of 
the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." .... 

These are enough to show how far the Church had gone 
in the development of a government unknown to the 
Apostles, and in what direction she was going. The last 
is a stumbling-block to both Roman Catholics and An- 
glicans, all whose bishops have incurred deposition from 
office under this "Canon of the Holy Apostles," for not 
practising trine immersion in baptism, as is done by the 
bishops and presbyters of the Greek Church. 1 

1 Another spurious authority for the monarchic episcopate is found in the 
writings ascribed to Dionysius the Areopagite, Paul's principal Athenian convert, 
and "the first Bishop of Athens" in the traditional account. These were first 
produced at a council held in Constantinople A. D. 532, and their authenticity 
was at once challenged by Hypatius, Bishop of Ephesus. But from this time 
they are constantly cited as the work of the Athenian magistrate and "bishop." 



136 The Historic Episcopate 

The name of Clement of Rome is attached to this com- 
pilation, as to many other spurious documents of the 
third century. The others are all of Ebionite origin, and 
represent an attempt to graft the Christian gospel upon 
a mass of Jewish beliefs and observances. It is suggested 
by Richard Rothe, and in this he is supported by his 
antagonists of the Tubingen school, that the Constitutions 
and Canons of the Apostles were originally an Ebionite 
document,, but altered and adapted by some "Catholic" 
Christian. He finds evidence of this origin in the stress 
laid on the monarchic episcopacy in this work, as in the 
other works of clearly Ebionite character, to which the 
name of Clement has been affixed. And this again he 
traces back to the Jewish Essenes. whom he believes to 
have influenced greatly the Ebionite churches, and who, 
according to Josephus, laid great stress on the principle 
of autocracy in religious discipline. 

Yet the opening words of the book, "The Apostles and 
presbyters to all those who from among the Gentiles have 
believed in the Lord Jesus Christ." seem rather to point 
to the working over of earlier Catholic documents, like 
the Didache. It seems if our monarchist so far forgot 
himself as to let the Apostles speak of themselves and the 
presbyters, and leave the bishops out. 

VIII. Attached to many editions of the works of Am- 
brose, the great Bishop of Milan, is a commentary on the 
Epistles of Paul, which manifestly is by another hand. 
To distinguish the author from Ambrose, somebody gave 
him the name Ambrosiaster. Modern scholarship has 

The treatise On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy develops to their logical conclusions 
all the sacerdotal ideas of the Christian ministry to be found in previous •writers 
from the Ignatian epistles to Chrysostom, and makes the threefold minis try an 
indispensable complement to the order of heaven. First Erasmus and other 
humanists, then theologians — Sirmond, Launoy. Morin. etc. — called the writings 
in question, while Bellarmin and Halloix tried to defend them. Their spur- 
iousness was demonstrated by Jean Daille (1666) in his treatise. De Scriptis 
quae sub Dion^rn Anopagita et Ignatii Antiocheni Xominibus C ircumferuntur 
Libri, Duo. 



From Senate to Monarch 137 

conjectured his identity with several writers of that 
age, but I think the best supposition is that he was Isaac, 
a convert from Judaism and a presbyter of the church in 
Rome, and that he also was the author of a series of 
Questions on the Old and New Testament, frequently printed 
in the works of Augustine. Both these works are valuable 
for the penetration and sound judgment of their author, 
and his knowledge of the Church's history. He tells us 
he was writing during the occupancy of the see of Rome by 
Damasus (A. D. 366-384). 

One of his "Questions" relates to the peculiar situation 
of the church of Rome with regard to its deacons. Ac- 
cepting as a precedent the appointment of seven deacons 
by the church in Jerusalem (Acts vi : 3), the number in 
Rome was limited to seven, while that of the presbyters 
increased with the growth of the church. This seems to 
have made the diaconate in Rome a distinction which 
was highly valued; and it came to be the usage to choose 
the bishops of that church from this seven, to the exclu- 
sion of the presbyters. It was one of the complaints of 
Novatian against Fabianus, Bishop of Rome, that he had 
ordained him presbyter, so as to shut him out from being 
bishop. Isaac, as a member of the Roman presbytery, 
seems to have resented the insolence of the Roman dea- 
cons, and in this " Question" he discusses the "braggartry 
of the Roman Levites": 

A person named Falcidius, led on by folly and boastfulness of 
Roman citizenship, has not delayed to put Levites on a level 
with priests, and deacons with presbyters. I will not say to 
put them first, as that is too foolish, and would certainly seem 
beyond belief, and we would have not reformers but calumni- 
ators. . . . But he so maintains the cause of the deacons 
against the presbyters, as if presbyters were ordained to be 
deacons, and not deacons to be presbyters. But forasmuch as 
they are ministers of the church in Rome, they therefore count 
themselves more eminent than those of the other churches, 
because of the magnificence of Rome, which seems the head of 



138 The Historic Episcopate 

all cities. If it be so, they ought to make this good for their 
priests also. . . . That presbyter means bishop, Paul 
the Apostle shows when Ik; instructs Timothy, whom he had 
ordained a presbyter, what sort of man he should make a bishop 
(I Timothy iii : 1-7). For what is a bishop but the foremost 
presbyter, that is, the high priest? He therefore gives them 
no other name than his fellow-presbyters and sharers in the 
priesthood. Why does not the bishop call the ministers his 
fellow-deacons? He does not because they are far below him. 
For in Alexandria, and throughout Egypt, if a bishop is not to 
be had, a presbyter consecrates (consecrat) , l 

He is still more explicit in his commentaries on the 
epistles of Paul. I shall give his comment on Ephesians 
iv: 11, and that on 1 Timothy iii: 8-10: 

For he calls Timothy, made a presbyter by himself, a bishop, 
because the first presbyters are called bishops; that as he 
retired, he might succeed him. Furthermore in Egypt the 
presbyters consecrate (consignant) if no bishop be present. But 
because presbyters began to be found unworthy of holding the 
chief place the method was changed by far-seeing design, so 
that not order but merit should go to the making of a bishop, 
appointed over many priests, lest an unworthy man should 
rashly seize the place and scandal should arise to many. 

Right after the bishop, however, he treats of ordination to 
the diaconate. Why is this, except because there is one ordina- 
tion of bishop and presbyter? Each is a priest, but the bishop 
comes first; as every bishop is a presbyter, but not every presby- 
ter a bishop. For he is the bishop who is first among the 
presbyters. Furthermore he indicates that Timothy had been 
ordained a presbyter; but because there is no one who is his 
superior, he was a bishop. WTierefore also he shows him in 
what way to ordain a bishop; but it neither was right nor will 
be allowed that one of lower rank should ordain one of higher. 
For no one gives what he has not received. 

At the first all taught and all baptized, at what days and 
hours it might suit. . . . That the people might increase 
and be multiplied, at first it was allowed to all to preach the 
gospel, and baptize, and expound the Scriptures in church. 
But when the Church extended to all places, meetings were 
appointed, and rulers and other officers were established in the 
churches, to the end that no one who was not ordained to it, 
should dare to take upon himself any duty which he knew had 
not been intrusted or conceded to him. And the Church began 
to be governed on a different plan and with a different prudence; 
because if everybody could do the same things, it would be 
unreasonable, and would appear a vulgar and very cheap 

1 Migne's Patrologia Latina, xxxv, 2301-03. 



From Senate to Monarch 139 

affair. Hence it is that deacons do not preach to the people, 
nor is baptism by cither laymen or clerics indifferently, nor are 
converts baptised OH any day whatever, unless they are sick. 1 

IX. Jerome, as we are accustomed to call Eusebius Hier- 
onymus (A. D. 346-420), was another contemporary of 
Bishop Damasus, and his personal friend. It was, indeed, 
Damasus who set him upon the work of revising the old 
Latin translation of the Bible, and thus led to his making 
the great Latin version we call the Vulgate. He was not 
a thinker of the same order with his other friend, Augus- 
tine of Hippo; but he surpassed all the Christian writers 
of the patristic period in scholarly acuteness and breadth 
of knowledge. His only rivals in scholarship are Origen 
and Eusebius. 

Like Origen, he was a presbyter, and never a bishop. 
Like Isaac, he was offended by the "braggartry of the 
Levites" of Rome; but he never distinctly refers to Isaac's 
writings, even when he is enumerating those who had writ- 
ten on Paul's Epistles. In a letter to a presbyter named 
Evangelus, Jerome says: 

I hear that somebody has burst forth into such folly as to put 
deacons before presbyters, that is, before bishops. For since 
the Apostle clearly teaches that presbyters are the same with 
bishops, what permits a servant of tables and of widows to uplift 
his swollen self above them, at whose prayer the body and blood 
of Christ are made {conjicitur) ? Listen to the proof (Philippians 
i: 1; Acts xx: 18). And that no one may quarrel with there 
being several bishops in one church, hear yet another proof, 
by which it is proved most clearly that bishop and presbyter are 
the same (Titus i: 5). And to Timothy (1 Timothy iv: 14). 
But Peter also in his first Epistle (1 Peter v). And this said 
more meaningly in Greek episcopountes, that is, superintending, 
and from this the word bishop is derived. Do the testimonies 
of men so great seem to you a small thing? The evangelical 
trumpet sounds, the "Son of thunder" whom Jesus loved the 
most, who got his doctrine as it flowed from the breast of the 
Saviour (2 John i). But that afterwards one was chosen to 
be placed over the rest, this was done in prevention of schism, 
lest anyone by attracting adherents to himself, should break 

1 Migne'a Patrologia Latina, xvii, 388. 



140 The Historic Episcopate 

up the church. For at Alexandria, from the time of Mark the 
Evangelist to those of Bishops Heraclas and Dionysius, the 
presbyters used to appoint as bishop always one chosen from 
among themselves and placed in the higher degree, as though 
an army should make some one their commander, or the deacons 
should choose from among themselves one whose industry they 
knew, and call him archdeacon. For what does a bishop do, 
which a presbyter does not, except ordination? 1 

In his commentaries on the Scriptures, Jerome is as 
diffuse as he is emphatic on this point. The classic 
passage is that on Titus i: 

A presbyter, therefore, is the same as a bishop, and before 
party zeal sprang up in religion, at the instigation of the Devil, 
and it was said among the peoples, "I am of Paul," "I of 
Apollos," ''But I of Cephas," the churches were governed by 
the common council of the presbyters. But after each one came 
to regard as his own, and not Christ's, those he had baptized, 
it was decreed through the world that one of the presbyters 
should be chosen and placed over the rest, and that the care of 
the whole Church should belong to him, that the seeds of schism 
might be taken away. Does anyone suppose that this is not 
Scripture, but our opinion, that bishop and presbyter are one 
and the same? Let him read again the words of the Apostle 
to the Philippians: "To all the saints which are in Phulippi, 
with the bishops and deacons." Philippi is a single city of 
Macedonia, and certainly in one city there could not be several 
bishops, as they now are styled. But because at that time 
they called the same persons bishops as they called presbyters, 
therefore he spoke indifferently of bishops as of presbyters. 
This still may seem doubtful to somebody, unless it is proved 
by farther testimony. It is written in the Acts of the Apostles 
that when the Apostle came to Miletus, he sent to Ephesus and 
called the presbyters of that church, to whom afterwards he said, 
among other things, "Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole 
flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you bishops." And 
here note diligently how calling the elders of the single city of 
Ephesus, he afterwards speaks of the same men as bishops. 
If anyone is willing to accept [as Scripture] that Epistle to the 
Hebrews, which bears the name of Paul, there also the care of 
the church is divided among several, if he writes to the people: 
"Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves 
to them, for these are they who watch for your souls as giving an 
account." And Peter says in his [first] Epistle, "The presby- 
ters among you I beseech, who am their fellow-presbyter, and a 
witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the 
glory that shall be revealed: feed the flock of the Lord, which is 

1 Migne's Patrologia Latino, xsii, 1102-1194. 



From Senate to M 'anarch 141 

among you, not by constraint hut willingly." This then we say 
to show that of old [a pi id re teres] the same persons were presby- 
ters who also were l>i>hops, but, little by little, that the seedplots 
of dissensions might be rooted up, all responsibility was conferred 
upon one. Therefore, as presbyters know that they are subject 
to him who is placed over them by the usage of the Church, 
so let the bishops know that they are greater than the presbyters 
rather by custom than by the verity of a divine appointment; 
and that they should rule the Church in common, imitating 
Moses, who, when he had the power to rule alone over the people 
of Israel, chose the seventy, with whom to judge the people. 1 

This statement of the case met with no challenge from 
Jerome's contemporaries, and was repeated, as we shall 
see, from one writer to another, down to the close of the 
sixteenth century. It became a commonplace of the 
scholastics, and of the Canonists, from Gratian (A. D. 
1151) to Lancelotti (A. D. 1570). It was accepted by 
both parties to the great dispute of the Reformation. 
And while it was abandoned by Roman Catholic theo- 
logians from Bellarmin onwards, it continued to find ac- 
ceptance with the more moderate and scholarly Anglicans, 
until interest in the subject died out in the eighteenth 
century. It was the accepted tradition of both Latin and 
Teutonic Christendom. 

Observe how completely Jerome rejects the Ignatian 
and Cyprianic theory of the monarchic episcopate. That 
theory involves a regard for it as the ecclesiastical equiva- 
lent of the spiritual order of God's heavenly kingdom. 
Jerome says that it was at best a concession to human 
frailty, and implies that if the original presbyterial con- 
stitution of the churches could have been maintained, it 
would have been so. Cyprian sets out with the declara- 
tion that the episcopate began with our Lord's grant of 
the keys to Peter. Jerome shows from the New Testa- 
ment that no such elevation of the bishop above the pres- 
byters was known in that age, and that the change it 

1 Migne's Patrologia Latina, xxvi, 562f. 



142 The Historic Episcopate 

involved has left not a trace of itself in the inspired 
Gospels and epistles. 

Noteworthy is his view as to the way and the time of the 
change. When he says that "it was decreed throughout 
the world" {in toto orbe decretum est), we would like to 
know by whom it was decreed. Richard Rothe naturally 
thinks of his council of the surviving Apostles after the 
fall of Jerusalem; Bishop Lightfoot of his last survivor 
of the Apostles, John at work in Asia. Jerome, who 
certainly knew as much of the facts of the history as either 
of them, gives no sanction to either hypothesis. That the 
change was not effected by apostolic authority is evi- 
dently his opinion, for he bids the monarchic bishop 
remember that he holds his place of superiority to the 
presbyters " rather by custom than by the verity of a 
divine appointment" (magis consuetudine quam dis- 
positionis Dominicce veritate). Nor is this inconsistent 
with his using the watchwords of the contending parties 
in the church of Corinth in Paul's time, as illustrating the 
party zeal which he believes to have made the episcopate 
a necessity. He takes these as typical of such carnal 
disputes; but he must not be taken too literally, or we 
shall have him putting two Apostles into the list of those 
who regarded their converts as belonging not to Christ but 
to themselves. 1 

X. Half a century earlier, however, that great heresy- 
hunter, Epiphanius of Salamis (Cyprus), enumerated 
among the heresies of Aerius of Sebasteia (Pontus) that 
he denied the rightfulness of the distinction between 
bishop and presbyter: 

Aerius says: "What is a bishop more than a presbyter? In 
no respect does the one excel the other, for they are one order," 

1 For a very able discussion of Jerome's statement, and of the attempts to 
belittle it, see Dr. Stillingfleet's "Irenicum" (London, 1659; Philadelphia, 
1842); pp. 301-308. 



From Senate to Monarch 143 

he says, "and one honor, and one office. The bishop," 
he says, "ordains, but so doe^ the presbyter. The bishop 
confers baptism {loutron), and likewise the presbyter. The 
bishop celebrates the Lord's supper, and the presbyter does 
just the same. The bishop is seated on his throne, and the 
presbyters also." 1 

This has given Dr. Richard Bancroft, Dr. Peter Heylin 
and some other High Anglicans an excuse for calling 
Presbyterians "Aerians," and talking of "the Aerian 
heresy." Unfortunately we know nothing of Aerius and 
his adherents except through the most narrow-minded 
and inaccurate of the Church fathers, 2 who explains the 
rise of this party much as some trace the Reformation to a 
quarrel between the Augustinians and the Dominicans 
about the profits of trading in indulgences. By his own 
account the Aerians were treated as the Scotch Cove- 
nanters were in the seventeenth century. "They were 
denied not only access to the churches,' ' says Canon 
Venables, "but even access to the towns and villages; 
and they were compelled, even in the depth of winter, 
when the country was covered with snow, to sojourn in 
the open fields, or in caves and ravines, and hold their 
religious assemblies in the open air exposed to the severity 
of the horrible Armenian winter. Little mercy would be 
inculcated by the ecclesiastical authorities toward the 
followers of one who ventured to bring Scriptural weapons 
to the attack of the fast-growing sacerdotalism of the age; 
who dared to call in question the prerogatives of the epis- 

1 Migne's Patrologie Grecque-Latine , Tome xlii, 506. Harnack (Dogmen- 
geschichte II, 69 n.) says that "Aerius not only asserted the original identity 
of bishops and presbyters — Jerome and the Theologians of Antioch had done 
that, appealing to The New Testament — but made the question an articulus 
ttantis et cadentis ecclesiae," and refers to Epiphanius as showing this. I find 
nothing of the sort in that author. 

2 "We have often reason to remark that the literary work of the Fathers 
falls short of the modern standard of accuracy; but there is none who is more 
apt than Epiphanius to make blunders through carelessness, want of critical 
discrimination, and, through a habit, not unknown at the present day, of stating 
what he guessed might be true, as if he had ascertained it to be true." (Dr. 
Salmon's Introduction to the New Testament, p. loon.) 



144 The Historic Episcopate 

copate; and who was struggling to deliver the Church 
from the yoke of ceremonies which were threatening to 
become as deadening and more burdensome than the 
rites of Judaism." 1 

1 Smith and Wace's Dictionary of Christian Biography, vol. i, pp. 50, 51. 



CHAPTER V 
Gradatim 

Some of those who maintain the apostolic origin of the 
monarchic episcopate challenge as unreasonable the state- 
ment that it made its way into the Church without apos- 
tolic authority, and yet (they say) without protest in the 
period of its introduction. They claim that its general 
recognition in the second half of the second century proves 
either that it was substantially the Church order which 
had existed in the churches of the apostolic period, or 
that whatever alterations had taken place must have been 
made by an authority to which the churches could not 
but defer. 

As to the introduction of monarchic episcopacy with- 
out contemporary protest, it must be remembered that 
the records of the first half of the second century are not 
better than scanty; but even these afford us evidence 
that the innovation was met with outspoken disapproval 
in some quarters. Mr. Purchas points out the Apostle 
John's epistle to Gaius as "a quiet protest" against the 
change; and Dr. Salmon's interpretation of that epistle 
supports this view in a general way. And in the Shepherd 
of the prophet Hermas we have a similar protest against 
the same tendency among the Roman presbyters in the 
time of Clement, who himself speaks of "strife over the 
name of the episcopate" as predicted by our Lord to his 
Apostles. Besides this, the excessive emphasis laid upon 
episcopacy and its value in the Ignatian epistles and the 

10 145 



146 The Historic Episcopate 

Apostolical Constitutions hardly would have been em- 
ployed if there had been no resistance to it in the churches 
meant to be reached and influenced. Montanism, which 
was in good part an effort to maintain the liberty of 
prophesying, as in apostolic times, shows an antagonism 
to the monarchic episcopate as aiming to set aside all 
other utterance in the churches than the voice of the 
bishop. 

There were some notable elements in the situation of 
the early churches w T hich facilitated the change from 
presbyterial to episcopal government in their adminis- 
tration, and which deserve consideration. 

I. The chief of these was the decay of faith in the 
living and abiding presence of our Lord in his Church. 
The apostolic Church rested its faith upon his promise of 
his real and personal presence with his people, to the end 
of time, which he makes again and again in the Gospels. 
" Where two or three are gathered together in my name, 
there am I in the midst of them," are the great words by 
which he assures them of the availing power of their 
united prayers (Matthew xviii: 19,20). They come im- 
mediately after that solitary mention of the Church, in 
which he invests it with the right of discipline and the 
power to bind and loose. "Lo, I am with you always, 
even unto the end of the world," are the closing words 
of the first Gospel, uttered after the commission to baptize 
all nations, and just before his ascension. He constantly 
puts himself forward as the source of spiritual life, both 
to the Church at large and to its individual members. 
And he warns his people against the practical atheism 
into which their countrymen had fallen, through the no- 
tion that God had gone away to a distance, and was to be 
conciliated by men's " binding the yoke of the law" 
upon themselves to induce him to return to them. 



Gradatim 147 

After Pentecost the Spirit wrought in them to make the 
Son of God a more living reality to them than he could 
have been in the years of his visible ministry. Now at 
last they are enabled to own his lordship in the fullest 
measure (1 Corinthians xii: 3), and to know the things 
which are freely given them of God in giving him (1 Cor- 
inthians ii: 12). For the Spirit did not in any sense dis- 
place the Son, but revealed and glorified him as the living 
and present Saviour and Lord of men, taking always of 
what was Christ's and showing it to his people (John 
xvi: 14, 15). So in the actual history of the Church, be- 
lievers found their Lord going on to do and to teach what he 
"began both to do and to teach" in the Gospel story 
(Acts i: 1), and that in a more vital and effective way than 
in his visible ministry. The conversion of Paul was an 
especially impressive proof, if proof had been needed, that 
the Saviour was still with his Church, and possessed the 
power to touch men's lives to still finer issues than when 
he dwelt in mortal flesh. No Gospel records so great a 
miracle as this, excepting always that miracle of miracles, 
the rising again from the dead. And the Apocalypse de- 
picts him as walking among his churches in unspeakable 
glory, rebuking their sins and weaknesses, and commend- 
ing their loyalty and patience. 

But even before the close of the apostolic age a change 
began to pass over the churches, and the love of many 
waxed cold, as our Lord himself had predicted (Matthew 
xxiv: 12). In John's great epistle and in that of James we 
have a sense of this. The Church, which had mounted 
up on eagle's wings at Pentecost, and had run without 
being weary in the great missionary age which came after 
the conversion of Paul, could claim no more than that she 
did walk, and not faint (Isaiah xl: 31), in the days when 
John lived on and encouraged his brethren to assurance 



148 The Historic Episcopate 

in faith. Let us not undervalue that, however, for it 
was this steady tramp at marching pace which carried the 
gospel to city after city, and spread it through every prov- 
ince of the Roman world, until at last the empire itself 
confessed the Name, which Vespasian had made a capital 
offence. There was a grandly heroic side to this period 
between Trajan and Constantine; but there were painful 
weaknesses, which every outburst of persecution brought 
into light. In that under the Emperor Decius (A. D. 
249-251), Cyprian of Carthage lamented that the greater 
part of his flock had given way, and had sought safety 
in compliance or fraud. 

The men who are the spokesmen of the post-apostolic 
church, from Clement of Rome onward, often impress us 
with their Christian excellence, and yet their difference 
from the teachers of the apostolic age. Albrecht Ritschl 
owed his conversion from the Tubingen theory to his 
observation that the best of them were unable to enter 
into the teaching of Paul as to the spiritual meaning of 
the gospel and its relations to the law; and he inferred the 
impossibility that any of the New Testament writings 
could be the products of the second century, as Baur and 
his consorts asserted of all of them except four Pauline 
Epistles and the Apocalypse. 

Especially we find in the patristic Church a distinct 
decay of that faith in Jesus Christ as the real, personal 
and present Head of the Church which characterized the 
first age. Hence the stress on Church officials as his 
representatives, his substitutes, and on acts of worship, 
which were interpreted as recovering for an instant his 
presence and bestowing a grace not otherwise enjoyed by 
them. Hence the deepening distinction between laity 
and clergy, as the apostolic faith in the universal priest- 
hood of believers was displaced by the recognition of a 



Gradatim 149 

class of priests. Hence the organized fussiness about 
departures from a traditional creed, when men ceased to 
look to their Master as the living teacher of his Church. 
This new attitude finds a frank expression in the brief 
speech made by Venantius, the Bishop of Timisa, in the 
council held at Carthage, A. D. 256, under the presidency 
of Cyprian. He said: 

If a husband were obliged to set out on a journey, and had 
intrusted his wife to a friend for safekeeping, with what care- 
fulness he would see that her chastity and sanctity should not 
be smirched by anyone! Christ, our Lord and God, setting 
out on his journey to the Father, has intrusted his Spouse to 
us. Shall we keep her incorrupt and inviolate, or surrender 
her to fornicators and pimps? l 

The church practically widowed, through her Spouse 
having gone away to a distant heaven, and left her de- 
pendent for her purity and integrity upon human officials 
— this is the picture which this African bishop draws of 
her condition, without either exciting criticism or calling 
forth a reply. 

The council of the Apostles was a body in which none 
of the Twelve aspired to the Master's place, simply be- 
cause that place was not vacant, and never could be. 
They were not a lordless and headless body, for he was 
with them as truly as when he visibly walked before them 
on their journeys through Galilee and Judaea. So the 
council of the presbyters in the local church required no 
visible superior, because their Lord and Master was the 
head of every church, as of every man in its fellowship. 
In both cases the seemingly empty place was symbolic 
of the unseen but real presence of their divine Lord, just 

1 Si maritus peregre proficiscens amico suo commendasset uxorem suam 
custodiendam, commendatam sibi ille quanta posset diligentia conservaret, 
ne ab aliquo castitas ejus et sanctitas adulteraretur. Christus Dominus et 
Deus noster ad Patrem proficiscens Sponsam suam nobis commendavit. Ut- 
rumne earn incorruptam et inviolatam custodiemus, an integritatem ejus et 
castitatem moechis et corruptoribus prodemus? Cypriani Opera, Curante 
E. G. Gersdorf (Leipzig, 1838-9), I, 275. 



The Historic Episcopate 

he Christian house of worship, unfurnished with either 
image or picture, announced to the faith of even.' true 
worshiper the abiding presence of the Saviour with his 
own. When that faith decayed, a visible head came to 
fill the vacuum this left. He came as the monarchic 
bishop of the local church, the high priest of a new wor- 
ship. He came as the archbishop of the provinces, as the 
patriarch of the great divisions of the empire, and finally 
he pope of Christendom. And with this change came 
also the images and statues into the churches, although 
the early apologists had laid stress upon their absence as a 
witness to the spirituality of Christian worship. 

II. That the political environment of the churches had a 
great share in developing the monarchic episcopate is 
pointed out by several of its friends. Dr. Salmon sug- 
gests that "in the natural order of things, the method of 
government by a single man, which in political matters 
was the rule of the Roman Empire, proved to be also the 
most congenial to the people in ecclesiastical matters." 
Dr. Hatch points out the existence of '"a general drift in 
contemporary organizations" " toward the institution of a 
president " over both public and private bodies, and gives 
eighteen instances of the existence of such officers from 
the existing inscriptions, most of them in Greece. 1 

It is not true, however, that the monarchic form of rule 
was natural with either the Greek and Roman peoples, 
or that of the lews. From the time of the overthrow or 
subordination of primitive kingship in the cities of Greece 
and Italy, in the fifth century before Christ, chic rule was 
in the hands of the elders of the city, called collectively 
the senate in Rome, and the Gerousia (senate) or Baule 
(council) in Greece. Monarchic authority, even in that 
early period, when their political instincts were still un- 

1 The Organization, of The Earl* Chrutim Churdut pp. S4-6. 



Gradatim 151 

developed, was alien to the genius of both peoples. It 
came in again with the overthrow of civic liberty by the 
Macedonians, and the erection of a military empire by the 
Romans. But even the usurpers, who subverted the 
Roman republic, dared not assume the hated name of 
king. They called themselves merely " generals" (im- 
peratores, emperors), and quite appropriately, for it was 
the militarism of Rome which had made their rule possible 
and even inevitable. Their civic title was " first member 
of the senate" (princeps senatus). And while military 
officers exercised a monarchic rule, the civic rule, even to 
the end of the Roman Empire, was in the hands of the 
senates of the cities. 

In the glimpses of city government we get in the Acts 
of the Apostles there emerges no monarchic official cor- 
responding to the mayor or burgomaster of mediaeval and 
modern times. In Ephesus, during the tumult raised by 
Demetrius, the only official of the town we hear of is the 
"townclerk" (grammateus, scribe), who kept the city's 
archives, drafted the decisions of its senate, and read these 
to the people. 

It was into a world of senate-governed cities that the 
Church was born, and from that order it took such impress 
as its political environment could impart to it. It was 
through imitation of that military system, which, as Hegel 
says, was " breaking the world's heart," and was reducing 
the whole population to the level of serfdom to supply 
the costs of its own maintenance, that the Church took on 
a monarchic character. Nor did that imitation cease 
until the Bishop of Rome acquired an imperial position 
in the Latin Church of the west, with the support of an 
episcopal hierarchy, which, in many respects, was a copy 
of the military staff of the emperors. 

Sir William M. Ramsay, in his Impressions of Turkey 



152 The Historic Episcopate 

(1897), suggests one of the ways in which the pressure of 
the Roman military rule tended to foster monarchic 
episcopacy in the churches, and its equivalent in voluntary 
associations. He says of the founder of an independent 
Protestant church in Armenia, that he " organized his 
little church in accordance with the Turkish law, . . 
. . that a religious community can be recognized only 
through its head ; the government requires that the church 
shall have a head, through whom all communications 
between the government and the church take place." 
He contrasts with this the disadvantage of the position 
of the congregations established among the Armenians 
by our American Congregationalists, and adds: "In 
one respect there is an interesting analogy between them 
and the position of the earliest Christians of the Roman 
Empire. In both cases the state law demanded that the 
organization, if officially recognized, should have a dis- 
tinct head, both as a whole and in each separate part, 
through whom it might communicate with the govern- 
ment. In both cases it was difficult to comply with such 
a requirement, for there was not a distinct and single 
head of the organization. The analogy cannot here be 
pursued in detail, as qualifications and chronological 
variations come in; but it is an interesting repetition of 
history." 

III. But the elements of the situation which tended to 
develop monarchic rule in the churches were not all of an 
illegitimate nature, (a) One was the necessity for the 
direction of public worship by one, or at most a very few, 
of the presbyters, as was done by the archisynagogus of 
the Jewish synagogue. To this Paul refers when he speaks 
of "the elders that preside well," in writing to Timothy. 
But it is noteworthy that while the synagogue had a 
distinct name for the man or men who managed this, 



Gradatim 153 

the Church had none. It was a service not rewarded by 
an eminence of place or name, but by the consciousness 
of having deserved well of the congregation, and of being 
held in especial honor for the work. It was a part of 
that divine order of the kingdom proclaimed by our 
Lord, when he declared that they ranked the highest in it, 
who served most widely and most humbly, without even 
the reward of a title (Matthew xx: 25-28; Luke xxii: 
25-27). Yet this innocent and useful prominence, when 
enjoyed by a Diotrephes, might become a stepping-stone 
to such a "preeminence" as John rebuked him for seek- 
ing. 

(6) Marked excellence of character in one of the pres- 
byters of the church must secure to him a weight of author- 
ity in spiritual things such as Poly carp enjoyed in Smyrna. 
This would bring him to the front in such a sort as to 
accustom the weaker members, and those less disposed 
to "make a conscience of their liberty," to regard the 
centralization of church activities around a single person 
as the best way. Thus a less noble and less useful man, 
on stepping into the place which had just been filled by a 
Polycarp, might acquire the credit and the influence 
rightly given to the saint, without possessing the great 
qualities which had made him a distinct power for good. 
This, of course, would be easier in the case of a hereditary 
position. It is in this way that kingships and aristoc- 
racies have been built upon gratitude toward the dead, 
for the benefit of those who inherited none of their virtues 
and their abilities. But even where there is no question 
of inheritance, it sometimes happens that the halo of a 
dead man may grow to a crown around the brows of the 
living man who sits in his seat. 

IV. Dr. Lightfoot, following Jerome, ascribes the rise 
of the historic episcopate to a consideration of its advan- 



154 The Historic Episcopate 

tages as a safeguard against schism and heresy; 1 and he 
calls attention to the prevalence of schismatic and heretical 
tendencies in the churches of Asia, which he regards as 
its first home. It is quite possible, and even probable, 
that some such consideration may have had weight with 
the Asian churches, at whatever date they subjected the 
presbytery to the rule of a single official, and thus gave 
to that presbyter, whom they held most able to deal with 
existing difficulties, the power to resist and to control 
erratic elements in the church. But it is fair to ask 
whether the results, even as regards the suppression of 
schism and heresy, were such as justified the change. 

There appears to be no evidence that the presbyteries 
of the churches were unable to cope with existing diffi- 
culties. We have seen the elders of the churches of 
Smyrna, Rome and Ancyra protect their flocks against 
the inroads of Noetian, Marcionite and Montanist here- 
sies in the second century. This notion of the superior 
efficiency of episcopacy in such matters is somewhat like 
the old assumption that a republic, through its lack of a 
hereditary executive, must prove less able than a mon- 
archy to maintain the authority of law and to protect 
the national existence. 

Furthermore, what security did a man's elevation to the 
monarchic episcopate give for his orthodoxy? The Ebion- 
ites abounded in bishops, and were great sticklers for 
episcopacy. There is good reason to believe that Marcion 
was a bishop, and we know that his sectarian churches 
were organized with bishops and presbyters. Paul of 
Samosata, Bishop of Antioch (A. D. 260-270), was one of 

1 Adolph Harnack (Dogmengeschichte I, 214 n.) lays stress on the episcopal 
organization of the churches (Gemeinden) as an element of strength in the struggle 
with Gnosticism. But he admits that the Gnostics showed an inability to or- 
ganize and discipline congregations of any kind, being rather schools of phi- 
losophy than churches. Ritschl notices something of the same sort in the Socini- 
ans of later days. 



Gradatim 155 

the first who denied our Lord's preexistence and equal 
deity. Arius, indeed, was a presbyter; but the bishops 
who adopted his creed, either in its entirety or in some 
modification, were numbered by hundreds. Athanasius 
and the Nicene Creed were condemned and rejected by 
episcopal majorities in the Councils of Tyre, Jerusalem, 
Antioch, Aries, Milan, and Sirmium; and for a time it 
seemed to be " Athanasius against the world" {Athanasius 
contra mundum). Even Liberius, Bishop of Rome, "as- 
sented to heretical pravity," as the old Roman breviary 
testifies, by signing a semi-Arian formula adopted at 
Sirmium, and disowning communion with Athanasius. 
Zosimus, Bishop of Rome, and the eastern bishops meet- 
ing in council, could detect no heresy in Pelagius, until 
Augustine and the church in Africa brought them to a 
better mind. And in the great Christological contro- 
versies settled by the general councils, every heresy had 
its episcopal champions in abundance. 

As to schism the episcopate has no better record. The 
Marcionites, Novatianists, Donatists, Aetians or Euno- 
mians, Arians (after A. D. 381), Nestorians, Monophysites, 
Monothelites, Priscillianists and Paulicians were all 
episcopalian sects, with hierarchies of their own, and 
generally an unimpeachable " apostolical succession.' ' 
The rending of the Copts, Syrians and Armenians from 
communion with the Orthodox Church of the east, what- 
ever its excuse in the political reasons alleged by Dr. 
Edward A. Freeman, was a disaster to the Christian cause, 
and was the work of bishops (as w T ell as emperors) on 
both sides the lines of division. The great schism be- 
tween the Greek and the Latin churches in the eleventh 
century, on grounds too trifling for serious consideration, 
was effected by the Bishops of Rome and Constantinople, 
with the assent and consent of their suffragans, both 



156 The Historic Episcopate 

eastern and western. The separation of the Protestant 
communions from "the Roman obedience" was begun 
by Leo X, Bishop of Rome, who, in A. D. 1520, excom- 
municated Dr. Martin Luther by bull, with entire dis- 
regard of the canonical requirements of the case. That 
of the Anglican Church was consummated by Paul V, 
Bishop of Rome, who issued a bull of excommunication, 
in 1570, against the Queen of England and all who held 
by her. Throughout that period of division, while 
presbyters like Melanchthon, George Witzel and George 
Cassander, and the lay cardinal Gasparo Contarini, 
labored for peace and reconciliation, I am unable to recall 
the name of a single bishop who used his office and in- 
fluence to those ends. The expulsion of the Jansenists 
of Holland and of the Old Catholics of Germany and 
Switzerland from the Latin church was also effected by the 
bishops, at the command of an "ecumenical" bishop. 

V. The rise of the monarchic episcopate to the posi- 
tion it held in the fourth century can be traced only im- 
perfectly, so gradual was the change. No new name 
was brought into Church use. For a time the term 
"presbyter" continued to be applied even to the monar- 
chic bishop of the local church. We have seen Ireneus 
of Lyons and Clement of Alexandria speak of presbyters, 
when they certainly meant what they also called bishops. 
Cyprian calls his presbyters "co-presbyters," and Fir- 
millian, Bishop of the Cappadocian Caesarea, writes to 
him that "all power and grace are established in the 
Church, where the elders (majores natu) possess both 
the power of baptizing, and of laying on of hands, and 
of ordaining." Dionysius of Alexandria speaks of his 
"co-presbyters" in that church. But the term "bishop," 
which had been common to all the members of the pres- 
bytery, was withdrawn from them, and, with a certain 



Gradatim 157 

propriety, assigned to the man who came to monopolize 
that pastoral function which it especially described. 

The change in the relation of the bishop to the other 
presbyters was at first slight. He was rather primus 
inter pares, than a lord over God's heritage. But, as 
early American politicians used to say, " power always 
accrues to a standing executive/' and honor along with 
power. The control of the offertory, and consequently 
of the relief of the needy and the stranger, in the existing 
condition of general poverty, and with the necessity of 
feeding the Christians in prison and in the mines, created 
for him a special constituency and support, which must 
destroy the balance of functions and of authority within 
the congregation. Hence the rapid rise of the bishop to 
the place held by Cyprian, and described in the Apostolical 
Constitutions as " sustaining the character of God among 
men in ruling over all men, over priests, kings, rulers, 
fathers, children, masters, and in general over all who are 
subject to" him; as "the minister of the word, the keeper 
of knowledge, the mediator between God and men. . 
. . . Next after God he is your father, who hath be- 
gotten you again to the adoption of sons by water and the 
Spirit. He is your ruler and governor, he is your king 
and potentate; he is, next after God, your earthly god." 
It is fair to suppose, however, that this code rather ex- 
pressed what its author wished to be thought and done, 
than what was true in any part of the Church. 

VI. At first the monarchic bishop w r ould be inaugurated 
as such without any special form of consecration or or- 
dination. He was recognized by his fellow-presbyters as 
taking up such duties and assuming such authority as 
belonged to his place. Least of all would there be any 
such practice as the assembly of the bishops of the other 
churches to set him apart to a new office. We have seen 



158 The Historic Episcopate 

that the presbyters of Alexandria, down to the beginning 
of the fourth century, felt no need of convoking outside 
bishops when a change in the occupancy of that " pa- 
triarchate" occurred. They chose from their own number 
the new patriarch, and installed him themselves. This 
probably was the general practice in all parts of the Church 
until well into the third century. The Roman ordinal, 
in the two earliest forms preserved to modern times, 
contains no form for the ordination of a bishop, but has 
those for ordaining presbyters and deacons. 1 Isaac, a 
Roman presbyter of the fourth century, says that "the 
ordination of bishop and presbyter is the same" (Episcopi 
et Presbyteri una ordinatio est). The first mention of the 
presence of bishops at the constitution of bishops is found 
in Cyprian (Epistle LV, vii.), but he assigns to them no 
other duty than that of assent to the choice made by the 
people. In detailing the grounds on which he and the 
church of Africa recognized Cornelius as rightful Bishop 
of Rome, against the claims of Novatian, he specifies 
popular choice and the assent of the bishops present; 
but says nothing of any act of " consecration" by them. 
But the Epistle of the Council of Carthage, three years 
later, for a similar recognition of Sabinus as rightful 
Bishop of Merida in Spain, does speak of "the hand laid 
upon him" (manus ei imponeretur) . 

It is in the canons of the Council of Nice that we find the 
first authentic requirement of the ordination or consecra- 
tion of a new bishop by other bishops. And the fact that 
the Nicene fathers then enacted it suggests that it was not 
a practice fully established and universally recognized in 
the churches. Alexander of Alexandria was one of those 
fathers; but, according to his successor Eutychius, he had 

1 Dictionary of Christian Antiquities (Hartford edition), vol. ii, p. 1498. 
Sub voce "Ordinal." 



Gradatim 159 

not been instituted patriarch in that way. Presbyters 
had made him a patriarch. It is not improbable that his 
title was just as good as that of the majority of the 
OCCXVIII, who united with him in enacting that other 
bishops must be called in to transmit episcopal succession 
by laying on of hands. 

VII. "What does a bishop do, which a presbyter does 
not, except ordination?" asks Jerome. This also was se- 
cured to the bishops as their prerogative only by degrees. 
Cyprian complains of the presbyter Novatus because he 
ordained (constituit) Felicissimus a deacon, without his 
knowledge and permission (nee permittente me nee sciente), 
which plainly implies that if leave had been given, there 
would have been no reason to challenge the validity of the 
act. The Council of Ancyra (A. D. 314) forbade presbyters 
to ordain without the consent of their bishop, so that they 
cannot have been regarded as disqualified for ordination by 
any defect of their office (Mansi II, 513-39). Colluthus, 
a presbyter of Alexandria, ordained presbyters, apparently 
by way of perpetuating an extreme opposition to the 
Arian heresy. An Alexandrian synod declared his or- 
dinations invalid, but in terms which implied that no 
earlier decision existed to which it might have appealed. 
Isaac of Rome, as we have seen, says that in Egypt 
presbyters consecrated when no bishop was present. 
John Cassian (A. D. 426) tells us that Paphnutius, the 
famous Egyptian abbot, although only a presbyter, or- 
dained the monk Daniel deacon and presbyter. 1 Bishop 
Stillingfleet, in his Irenicum (1659), says that "where 
churches were planted by presbyters, as the churches in 
France by Andochius and Benignus, they did from among 

1 A beato Paphnutio presbytero ad diaconii est praelatus officium. In tantum 
enim beatus Paphnutius ipsius virtutibus adgaudebat, ut quem vitae mentis 
et gratia parem noverat, coaequare sibi etiam sacerdotii ordinare festinavit. 
(Collatio IV, Cap. I.) 



160 The Historic Episcopate 

themselves choose one to be the bishop over them; for 
we nowhere read that they sent to other churches to derive 
their episcopal ordination from them." Willihad and 
Altfried, while laboring as missionaries among the Ger- 
mans, ordained presbyters, although themselves pres- 
byters, without incurring any censure. Boniface, the 
great Archbishop of Maintz, in the eighth century, found 
in the churches of Bavaria, some of which dated back to 
A. D. 540, only one bishop, and he a recent arrival, so 
that Pope Zachary had to give orders to have the pres- 
byters in charge of these churches ordained by their 
bishop. 1 

"In the year 452," says Stillingfleet, "it appears by Leo, 
in his epistle to Rusticus Narbonensis, that some presby- 
ters took upon them to ordain as bishops; about which he 
was consulted by Rusticus, what was to be done in that 
case with those so ordained. Leo's resolution of that case 
is observable: 'Those clergymen who were ordained by 
such as took upon them the office of bishops, in churches 
belonging to proper bishops, if the ordination were per- 
formed by the consent of the bishops, it may be looked 
upon as valid, and those presbyters remain in their office 
in the church.' So that by the consent ex post facto of 
the true bishops, those presbyters thus ordained, were 
looked upon as lawful presbyters, which could not be 
unless their ordainers had an intrinsical power of ordina- 
tion, which was only restrained by the laws of the Church ; 
for if they have no power of ordination, it is impossible 
that they should confer anything by their ordination." 

VIII. Our Lord, in formally constituting the Eleven his 
Apostles, used the symbolical act of breathing upon them; 
and no act is mentioned in the reception of Matthias 

1 Presbyteri vero quos ibidem reperisti, si incogniti fuerint viri illi a quibua 
sunt ordinati, et dubium est eos episcopos fuisse, an non, qui eos ordinaverunt, 
ab Episcopo suo benedictiones Presbyteratus suscipiunt. 



Gradatim 161 

amon^ them. But in the case of the seven deacons the 
apostles prayed and laid hands upon them. The prophets 
of the church in Antioch " fasted and prayed and laid their 
hands on" Barnabas and Saul, when the Holy Spirit had 
given direction to "separate" them for missionary labor. 
Paul mentions in the case of Timothy " the laying on of the 
hands of the presbytery" of Lystra. He also speaks of a 
"gift" (charisma), which had been bestowed "by proph- 
ecy" at the same time, and elsewhere he seems to inti- 
mate that this came through himself (1 Timothy iv: 14; 
2 Timothy i: 6). 

We also read of the imposition of hands upon persons 
who had just been baptized, and who were not ordained 
thereby to any office. Peter and John came to Samaria, 
after Philip had baptized many, and "prayed for them, 
that they might receive the Holy Spirit. Then laid 
they hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit" 
(Acts viii: 15, 17). Certain disciples of John the Baptist 
were baptized after instruction by Paul, and "when Paul 
had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them; 
and they spake with tongues, and prophesied" (Acts xix: 
6). In the Epistle to the Hebrews (vi: 2 ) "baptisms and 
laying on of hands" are specified among the elementary 
facts and experiences of the Christian life, from which we 
are to "go on to perfection." This would seem to in- 
dicate that the imposition was not an exceptional act in 
the two cases mentioned in the Acts, but a usual practice 
at the reception of baptized persons, as it was also at the 
restoration of penitents to the communion of the Church 
(1 Timothy v:22). 

That which is common to the two classes of acts is their 

association with prayer, not for the whole ecclesia and its 

needs, but for the persons specially in mind as recipients 

of a special grace. The subjects of this prayer are sym- 

ii 



1 62 The Historic Episcopate 

bolically "separated" by the laying on of hands, while 
God is asked to confer upon them either office or gift. 
"What is the imposition of hands," asks Augustine, 
"but prayer over the man?" Jerome speaks of it being 
used to prevent anyone being ordained without his 
knowledge and consent, as might be done if a mere form 
of words sufficed. 1 

It is remarkable how infrequent are the references in 
early Christian literature to the imposition of hands in 
conferring office. Mention of its use in admitting cate- 
chumens into communion, and restoring penitents, is 
common enough; but there is hardly any reference to it 
as employed in ordination. The Constitutions and Canons 
of the Holy Apostles give the prayers for the installation 
of a bishop or a presbyter, but are silent as to the imposi- 
tion of hands. The old Roman ordinal, even in its second 
form, which includes an office for the induction of a bishop, 
has nothing about bishops laying their hands on the head 
of the new bishop. A treatise On the Divine Offices 
(Liber de Divinis Officiis), dating from the eleventh cen- 
tury, and wrongly ascribed to Alcuin, declares there is no 
authority for this usage, and especially none in Roman 
tradition, old or new (non reperitur in auctoritate veteri 
neque nova, sed neque in Romana traditione) ? 

The actual form of the installation of a bishop seems to 
have been to escort him after his election to his seat 
(sedes, throne), where he at once proceeded to the highest 
acts of his new office. He preached the word and cele- 
brated the eucharist. The bishops present at the office 
performed their part by expressing their assent to his 
election and induction. It is recorded, indeed, that Nova- 
tian, a pretender to the Roman see, assembled a number 

1 Auffustinus de Baptismate contra Donatistas, 3, 16. 

2 Migne'a Patrologie Latine, Tome ci. 



Gradatim 163 

of bishops and had them lay their hands on his head in 
recognition of his claim to be Bishop of Rome. Cor- 
nelius, the lawful bishop, and Cyprian of Carthage both 
ignore this as having any real importance; and Cyprian 
enumerates the claims of Cornelius to that bishopric 
without saying anything of the imposition of hands by 
other bishops. 1 

Even in later times there has been no such uniformity 
in the manner and method of ordination and consecration 
as has been generally supposed. "In the Alexandrian 
and Abyssinian Churches," says Dean Stanley, "it was, 
and still is, by breathing; in the eastern Church generally 
by lifting up the hands in the ancient oriental attitude of 
benediction; in the Armenian Church, as also at times in 
the Alexandrian Church, by the dead hand of the pre- 
decessor; in the early Celtic Church, by the transmission 
of relics or pastoral staff; in the Latin Church by the 
form of touching the head, which has been adopted from 
it by all the Protestant churches. No one mode was 
universal; no written formula of ordination exists. That 
by which the presbyters of the western Church are ordained 
is not later than the twelfth century, and even that varies 
widely in the place assigned to it in the Roman and the 
English churches." 2 

In the first Booh 0} Discipline of the Scottish Kirk (1560) 
the "vocation" of ministers is said to be by "election, 
examination and admission. Other ceremonies than the 
public approbation of the people, and declaration of the 
chief minister that the person there presented is appointed 
to serve the church, we cannot approve; for albeit the 
Apostles used imposition of hands, yet seeing the miracle 
is ceased, the using of the ceremony we judge not neces- 

1 Cypriani Epistolae, x, liii, lv, 7 (4). Eusebii Historia Ecclesiastica, Lib. VI, 
Cap. 43. 

1 Christian Institutions, pp. 191-192. 



164 The Historic Episcopate 

sary." This was John Knox's view; but the second 
Book of Discipline, composed under the influence of An- 
drew Melville (1578), says that "the ceremonies of or- 
dination are fasting, earnest prayer and imposition of 
hands of the eldership," i. e., the presbytery. It is a 
matter of controversy whether the imposition of hands 
was omitted even in the interval between the two books, 
and it certainly has been the usage in all Presbyterian 
churches from the second date. 



CHAPTER VI 
From Pastor to Prelate 

Thus far I have been comparing the monarchic epis- 
copate of the congregational type, as depicted in the Ig- 
natian Epistles, in the works of Cyprian, and in the Con- 
stitutions and Canons of the Holy Apostles, with the primi- 
tive type of presbyterial episcopacy, described or implied 
in the apostolic writings, in the Didache, Hermas, Clement 
of Rome and Polycarp; and I have sought to ascertain the 
manner and means of the transition from the one to the 
other, which is observable about the middle of the second 
century. As I said in the discussion of the Ignatian 
Epistles, there is no denominational interest at stake in 
this. The type of Church government which came into 
use at that date differs in kind from that which at present 
claims the name of "the historic episcopate." It is a 
type which nowhere exists in the Oriental, Greek, Latin, 
or Anglican communions. It was a pastoral episcopate, 
in which the bishop was at the head of a single urban 
church, assisted in his labors by the presbyters and deacons, 
but with the direct responsibility for the spiritual welfare 
of the congregation and of each of its members. "Do 
nothing without your bishop !" is the Ignatian exhorta- 
tion not only to the presbyters and deacons, but to the 
whole congregation. 

"Another caution that should be borne in mind," says 
Dr. Sanday, "is that in approaching the subject, it is well 
to divest ourselves, as far as possible, of associations de- 
rived from the modern episcopate. The bishop of primi- 

165 



1 66 The Historic Episcopate 

tive times was not by any means the potentate we are 
apt to think him. There were, at first, very few Chris- 
tians in the country, and these few could come into town 
to worship. Every town of any size had its bishop; and 
if there were several churches, they were served by the 
clergy whom the bishop kept about him; they were in 
fact like our present 'chapels of ease/ and the whole posi- 
tion of the bishop was very similar to that of the incum- 
bent of the parish church in one of our smaller towns. 
The tendency at first, as Ignatius shows, was toward 
complete centralization; the whole serving of the parish 
was directly in the hands of the bishop. The parish 
system, in the later sense, with an extended diocese, and 
a number of more or less dependent clergy, took shape 
mainly in France, and under the Merovingian and Carlo- 
vingian kings. In some respects the Nonconformist com- 
munities of our own time furnish a closer parallel to the 
primitive state of things than an Established Church can 
possibly do." 1 

"The bishop, according to the early ideal," says Dr. 
Gore, "was by no means the great prelate. He was the 
pastor of a flock, like the vicar of a modern town, in inti- 
mate relations with his people." 2 In the third and the 
following centuries, in most parts of the Greco-Roman 
world, this congregational episcopacy passed, with more 
or less rapidity, into a diocesan prelacy, in which the 
bishop becomes the ecclesiastical administrator of a 
district much too large for the pastoral responsibility of 
any one person. The bishop is obliged to delegate the 
oversight of the people to subordinates. This was not a 
change from a smaller to a larger responsibility of the 



1 The Conception of Priesthood in the Early Church and in the Church of 
England (London, 1899). 

2 The Church and The Ministry (London, 1907). See p. 102. 



From Pastor to Prelate 167 

same kind. It was what the logicians call a metabasis es 
alio gcnos — a change in kind and not in degree. It was, 
as David Calderwood said, a transition "from pastor 
to prelate." 1 

I. The Greco-Roman world, in which the Christian 
Church made its beginnings, was a world of cities. Its 
social order had originated at a time when the people of 
each district must organize and fortify themselves for 
self-defence against even their neighbors. So they built 
and lived in fenced cities, behind the ring-wall, and or- 
ganized as military bodies. They tilled so much of the 
land as lay within reach of the city; but the open country, 
stretching from the neighborhood of one city to that of 
another, was not filled up with farms and villas, hamlets 
and villages, as in later times, but lay idle. Men could 
not venture to live in unprotected places, as they now do. 

This state of things has left its record in many of our 
familiar words. Because the city was the ancient form 
of the state, we have polity, politics, polish and police, 
derived from the Greek word polis, meaning a city; and 
civic, citizen, civilized, from the corresponding Latin 
word. Nor can the Bible be understood without reference 
to the fact that the world it speaks of was a world of 
cities. Cities made up the homes of the ancient Israelites, 
and on the return of the Jews from the Captivity they 
went "every one unto his city." In the New Testament 
the term city is treated as the type of human society. The 
divine order of society is "the city which hath the founda- 
tions," which Abraham sought, and "the holy city" of 
John's prophetic vision. And Augustine, exhibiting the 
nature of the divine government of the human race, calls 
his treatise Concerning the City of God. 

1 Pattor and Prelate; or, A Treatise on Reformation and Conformitie. Edin- 
burgh, 1628; Philadelphia, 1844. 



1 68 The Historic Episcopate 

The erection of the Roman Empire, by establishing the 
Roman peace (pax Romana) between the cities it brought 
under its sway, effected something of a change in this 
order of things. It made it safe for people, in times when 
the empire was at peace within itself, to live out in the 
open country, or in villages or cantons (pagi) away from 
the hot and stagnant atmosphere of the walled city. In 
the Gospels we read of our Lord teaching in cities and 
villages (Matthew ix: 35; Mark vi:56), and sending the 
Apostles to do the same; but the word village is sometimes 
used loosely by the evangelists, as meaning a small city, 
e. g., Bethlehem (John vii: 42), which was counted " little 
among the cities of Judah." But the city tradition was 
too strongly established for any general departure from 
it, and the Roman peace was so frequently insecure as 
to discourage life in the open. The city continued to be 
the home of the vast majority of the human race, and its 
ways were the accepted order of human life, down to the 
time of the establishment of Teutonic kingdoms on the 
ruin of the empire, in the fifth century. 

While western Asia was a land of cities, partly through 
old tradition, and partly through the Hellenization of its 
people after Alexander's conquests, Egypt was a marked 
exception to the rule. It never had been a land of cities, 
nor had Macedonia, the country which furnished its 
Greek conquerors and rulers. It was divided into thirty- 
six districts, called nomes, each with a religious and govern- 
mental center amounting to a town or city in size, but not 
in character. The Macedonians, indeed, erected Alex- 
andria and Ptolemais after the external form of Greek 
cities; but they would not have been recognized as 
properly cities in Greece or Italy. They had no elective 
archons, no civic council, no approach to local self-govern- 
ment. Like all the rest of Egypt, they were governed 



From Pastor to Prelate 169 

by officials appointed by the Ptolemies, as Memphis and 
Thebes had been by those of the Pharaohs. 

In Roman Africa, at the other end of the Mediterranean, 
the city system was as flourishing as in Italy or Greece, 
though with a difference. The Punic settlers had brought 
with them from Syria a civic government of a less popular 
form than the Greek. Two magistrates, called suffetes, 
took the place of the civic council; and the cities estab- 
lished by the Romans after the conquest took much the 
same form. But no part of the empire was more abun- 
dantly furnished with cities than this large district. 

It was different in the western European provinces, 
which had not evolved a city system of their own before 
the Roman peace made that dispensable. Spain, Gaul, 
Britain, Roman Germany, Pannonia, Illyria, Dacia and 
Thrace never became the homes of an urban system to 
the same extent. In each of them the local unit recog- 
nized by the Roman rulers is the canton, generally occu- 
pied by a tribal kinship, and originally ruled by hereditary 
chiefs. Rome achieved more in the way of urbanizing 
these cantons in Spain than anywhere else. In southern 
Gaul the influence, first of Greece and then of Rome, 
tended to develop a city system; but the whole country 
was divided into administrative districts called "civi- 
tates," with a town of some size at the center of each. 
Throughout the w T est, Rome fostered the erection of 
cities as a matter of policy, and established some as a 
means of defence. But the motive which produced the 
cities of Greece and Italy was wanting, and this later 
growth w T as feeble and exceptional. 1 

It was within the region controlled by the city system, 
and in Egypt, that the Jewish Dispersion had found a 

1 The Ancient City, by Fustel de Coulanges (Fr. London, 1871). The Prov- 
inces of the Roman Empire, from Caesar to Diocletian, by Theodore Mommsen 
(Trans. New York, 1887). 



17° The Historic Episcopate 

home. It was through this region that the Christian 
Church was extended by the labors of the Apostles. In 
cities of Asia, Greece and Italy we see Paul gathering 
churches; and to six of these city churches he addresses 
eight of his Epistles; and that to the Galatians was sent 
to the cities of Iconium, Lystra and Derbe. In each city 
of his field we see a church formed as the church of that 
city, with the municipal limits accepted as those of the 
church's responsibility. Barnabas invites him to " re- 
turn and visit the brethren in every city wherein we pro- 
claimed the word"; and he enjoins upon Titus to " appoint 
elders in every city" of Crete. Peter, in writing to the 
"sojourners of the Dispersion," implies that they were 
residents of cities. To the churches of the seven cities 
of Asia are addressed the epistles of the Apocalypse. 

Nor is there any difference in this respect between 
apostolic and sub-apostolic literature. Clement writes 
in the name of the church of Rome to the church of 
Corinth; Poly carp addresses the church in Philippi; 
Hermas addresses the church of Rome, and asks that his 
book be sent "to the cities abroad." Every city that has 
been reached by the gospel has its church; and every 
church has its city. Nowhere, except in the case of the 
Apostles, and the evangelists specially commissioned to 
act for them, have we knowledge of any church official 
who claims to exercise authority over any larger area than 
a city. 

This was indicated also by the name given to the re- 
gion occupied by each church in the sub-apostolic period. 
It is called the paroikia or parish. The paroikos in a 
Greek city was an alien resident, who was sojourning in 
the city, but held his citizenship elsewhere. As the primi- 
tive Church regarded itself as having no permanent citi- 
zenship in this world, it adopted this term as indicating 



From Pastor to Prelate 171 

that it was sojourning in the city, rather than abiding 
there. 

II. The cities of the Greco-Roman world were places of 
very various size and importance. The commercial or 
the agricultural advantages of a city's neighborhood, or 
its importance as a military post, or its position on the 
frontier as a customs station, or its possession of great 
pagan sanctuaries attracting pilgrims, might secure it a 
large population. But in most cases it corresponded to 
the Preacher's " little city, and few men within it" (Ecclesi- 
astes ix: 14), which yet had its bulwarks and must be 
taken by siege. Whether large or small, the city was the 
unit of Church organization throughout the lands around 
the Mediterranean, over which Rome had established 
her rule as a city mistress of the cities. Many or few, 
the Christians of each city made up one congregation, 
met at one communion table, broke the one loaf, and 
brought to the one place that weekly offertory, from 
which were relieved the poor, the stranger, the imprisoned 
for the gospel's sake and the widows and orphans. And 
they submitted to the rule of one presbytery, and filled 
vacancies in its membership by free election from their 
own number. 

Even the largest of the cities was at first no excep- 
tion. Rome is estimated to have held a population of 
four millions within its walls. The church of Rome was 
the largest and the most wealthy of all. In the time 
of Bishop Callistus (A. D. 218-223) we read of its forty- 
six presbyters, seven deacons and as many sub-deacons, 
forty-two acolytes or attendants, fifty-two exorcists, 
readers and door-keepers, and fifteen hundred widows and 
others on the list of persons aided from the funds of the 
church. 1 Yet not until the middle of the third century 

1 Eiueirii Hiatoria Ecclesiastica, Lib. VI, Cap. 43. 



172 The Historic Episcopate 

do we hear of any subdivision of the church. Bishop 
Fabianus or Flavianus (A. D. 236-250), we are told by the 
Liber Pontificalis (sixth century), divided the fourteen 
civil "regions" of the city " among the seven deacons, and 
caused to be erected many buildings in the cemeteries." 
This arrangement seems to have been made with reference 
to the rights of sepulcher and the orderly burial of Roman 
Christians; and the buildings were what now would be 
called mortuary chapels. Bishop Dionysius (A. D. 259- 
269), the same authority says, " divided the churches and 
cemetries among the presbyters, and constituted parishes 
and dioceses." But the date given for this momentous 
change seems to be too early, as the same record says of 
Bishop Marcellus (A. D. 307-309) that he "instituted in 
the Roman city twenty-five titles as parishes (titulos 
quasi dioceses) for the baptism and penitence of the many 
who were converted from the pagans, and for the burial 
of the martyrs." In the time of Bishop Damasus 
(A. D. 366-384), Ambrose of Milan tells us, it was the 
custom at Rome that there should be "seven deacons, 
and so many presbyters that there should be two for 
each church." In the days of his successor, Bishop 
Siricius, we are told by Optatus of Milevis, there were 
forty or more basilicas in Rome; but antiquarians believe 
that nearly half of these were the mortuary chapels out- 
side the walls in the cemetries, one for almost every parish, 
and in charge of the junior presbyter of the parish. 1 

So slowly did even the largest urban church in Christen- 
dom move toward a separation into several congregations, 
and away from the earlier method of a single meeting by 
which they "were all with one accord in one place." 
In the other great cities they clung to that formal unity. 

1 Monuments of the Early Church, by Walter Lowrie (New York, 1901), 
pp. 37-40. 



From Pastor to Prelate 173 

Milan in the fourth century was the second city of Italy, 
and one of the new imperial capitals. Yet in A. D. 385- 
380, when its great bishop Ambrose was struggling against 
the intrusion of Arian worship by the Empress Justina, 
there was but one church within the walls and one — 
probably a mortuary chapel — outside them; and the 
empress was defeated in her purpose by the people keep- 
ing possession of the great basilica in relays, by night and 
day (Dictionary of Christian Biography, i, 95). In the 
many small cities, of course, there was no need for more 
than one place of assembly; but even in great places, 
where the number of the Christian believers was large, 
but one existed. As late as the Middle Ages, the populous 
city of Antwerp had but one priest in the twelfth century; 
Montpelier had but one church in A. D. 1213; and Ypres 
in A. D. 1247 had but four parish churches for two hun- 
dred thousand people. 1 This does not suit our modern 
ideas of " church accommodation," but we must recognize 
the fact that converts from a system like the paganism of 
Rome did not easily come to accept the idea that all the 
people of a city should be in church at the same time. In 
fact, paganism knew of no religious assemblies but those 
of their priests; and the Christian way of worshiping in 
crowds had been thought a very suspicious feature of this 
new religion. 

III. In the east the number of bishops and sees was a 
surprise to Walafried Strabo (ninth century), who was 
accustomed to the magnitude and paucity of the dioceses 
of Germany and France. "It is reported," he says, "that 
in certain parts of the east the government of bishops is 
over single cities and single districts." After a great re- 
duction through heretic secessions and Saracen conquests, 

1 A History of A uricular Confession and Indulgences in the Latin Church, by 
Henry Charles Lea (Philadelphia, 1896), i, 205. 



174 The Historic Episcopate 

the Patriarch of Constantinople had four hundred and 
thirty-two bishops within his jurisdiction; the Patriarch of 
Antioch, two hundred and forty; the Patriarch of Alex- 
andria, two hundred and six. Greece and Illyria had one 
hundred and sixty bishops; Cyprus, fifteen. This gives a 
total of nine hundred and fifty-five Catholic and orthodox 
bishops in the eastern half of the Church, besides the bish- 
ops of the oriental sects in Egypt, Syria, Armenia and 
Persia. 1 Some of the sees were small enough. Gibbon 
speaks with contempt of the customs house station at the 
crossroads, called Sasima, over which Basil, Bishop of 
Caesarea and Metropolitan of Cappadocia, ordained his 
friend Gregory Nazianzen bishop in A. D. 372, with a 
maximum of six resident Christians to be cared for. 

In Italy and the adjacent islands, in the fourth century, 
there were two hundred and ninety-three bishops; in 
Spain, seventy-six; in Gaul and Roman Germany, one 
hundred and twenty-two; and Mr. Palmer conjectures 
that in Britain and Ireland there were " perhaps nearly 
seventy." As to Roman Britain, we know of exactly 
three sees — London, Lincoln and York — whose bishops 
signed the proceedings of the council held at Aries in A. D. 
314. Ireland came under a peculiar Church order, based 
on the sept system of its Celtic inhabitants, and had 
bishops galore. Sometimes there would be several resi- 
dent in one small town, living under the jurisdiction of 
a co-arb, i. e., the head of a church-sept, who might be a 
woman, as Hilda was at Whitby in the seventh century. 
Nennius, a British Celt of the seventh century, tells us 
that there were three hundred and sixty-six bishops in 
Ireland. A later authority says seven hundred. 2 

1 A Treatise of the Church of Christ, by William Palmer (London, 1838), i, 204. 

2 Wiltsch's Geography and Statistics of the Church (London, 1859); Dr. 
Todd's Life of St. Patrick, the Apostle of Ireland (Dublin, 1864); Ireland and the 
Celtic Church, by Dr. George T. Stokes (London, 1886); The Making of England, 
by John Richard Green, pp. 276-80. 



From Pastor to Prelate 175 

In Roman Africa the urban type of the monarchic 
episcopate flourished, possibly because it corresponded 
to the civic government of a country which abounded in 
small Punic cities, each of them ruled by executive suffetes 
rather than civic councils, and in colonies of Roman 
veterans accustomed to military rule. Cyprian of Car- 
thage held a council in A. D. 256, to condemn the recog- 
nition of heretical baptism, which was attended by eighty- 
seven bishops from the country now known as Algeria 
and Tunis. This is somewhat larger than England and 
Wales, but smaller than the State of Missouri; and it 
was not half Christianized. Thirty-two of these bishops 
represented places entirely unknown to history, being 
mentioned by no ancient author, and not identified by any 
inscription, although French scholarship has been search- 
ing that country for this kind of record with almost mi- 
croscopic thoroughness. 1 

In the course of a century the number of bishops at- 
tending African councils was greatly enlarged, through 
the inclusion of Numidia and Mauretania, and the general 
Christianization of the population. The Donatist heresy 
obliged the holding of many councils, and the records of 
the bishops present at several are preserved. Augustine 
speaks of four hundred and sixty-six bishops in his time, 
all of the Catholic party. The signatures of the Acts of 
Councils furnish a total of five hundred and eighteen 
orthodox African sees, scattered over what came to be 
called the Barbary States. Yet through most of the 
country the "Catholics" were in the minority, and the 
Donatists in control, until their churches were scattered 
and their clergy arrested by the imperial authorities at 
the instance of the rival Church. At the great conference 

1 Wiltsch's Geography and Statistics of the Church, i; Mansi's Sacrorum Con- 
ciliorum Collectio, i, 921-32; ii, 463-512; iii, 159; iv, 7-286. Roman Africa, 
by Alexander Graham (London, 1902). 



176 The Historic Episcopate 

of A. D. 411, there were present two hundred and eighty- 
six "Catholic" and two hundred and ninety-six "Dona- 
tist" bishops; and it is noted that twenty-nine of the 
latter were absent. If we take Augustine's figures, we 
have a total of seven hundred and ninety-one bishops of 
both parties; if we follow the council lists, eight hundred 
and forty-three bishops, all holding the Nicene Creed, but 
quarreling over what was but a point of discipline. It 
is true that many of the Donatist bishops were disputing 
the possession of a see with a "Catholic" rival; but this 
was by no means the case generally. Many cities were 
entirely Donatist; and that party was censured for setting 
up bishops where no bishop should be, as on the great 
estates of their wealthy friends, where there would be a 
scattered rural population, but nothing that could be 
called a city. At the worst, however, they would have as 
many to care for as had Gregory Nazianzen in his Catholic 
diocese of Sasima. 

A strong contrast to all this was seen in the north of 
Europe, where bishops were introduced later than in 
Italy or Africa, and cities were rare. Great Britain was 
the worst of all. The three sees of Roman Britain were 
wiped out, with almost all the rest of the fruits of Roman 
rule, by the Anglo-Saxon conquest, A. D. 449-588, and 
Christianity survived only in unconquered Wales and 
Strathclyde. 

IV. Ecclesiastical historians have remarked the diminu- 
tion of the number of episcopal sees, especially in the west, 
from that which existed in early times. Some have tried 
to account for it by the ravages of the barbarians in the 
fifth and the following centuries; but it began earlier 
than the coming of the Teutons upon the cities of the 
western empire, and it did not cease with the general 
restoration of order through their conversion to Chris- 



From Pastor to Prelate 177 

tianity. It was one of the results of that desire for pre- 
eminence which was working in the Church even in the 
days of the last Apostle. 

First came the claim of the bishop of the capital city of 
the province to take precedence as their metropolitan 
over the local bishops, and to require that their important 
acts be done with his consent, as is prescribed in the 
Canons of the Holy Apostles. He demanded a rank in the 
Church corresponding to that held in the civil government 
by the proconsul who governed the province in the name 
of the emperor; and through the attraction exercised by 
the state upon the Church, he obtained this. He acquired 
great powers of interference through the Nicene rule that 
a new bishop must receive ordination at the hands of the 
bishops of the province. "By a natural process," says 
Dr. Hatch, "just as the vote of a bishop had become neces- 
sary to the validity of the election of a presbyter, so the 
vote and sanction of a metropolitan became necessary to 
the validity of the election of a bishop." 

The country bishops, whose sees were cities of trifling 
importance, or mere villages, were the victims of the new 
methods of aggression. Under the Roman peace there 
had been a considerable overflow of the population of the 
empire into villages, and cities not much above villages 
in extent. Thither the Church followed them. Peter 
and John "preached the gospel to many villages of the 
Samaritans" (Acts viii: 25). Clement of Rome speaks of 
the Apostles "preaching through districts (choras) and 
cities." Pliny writes to Trajan that in Bythinia "not 
only the cities, but villages and farms (agros) have been 
reached by the contagion of the superstition." Justin 
Martyr says that on Sunday "there is a concourse of all 
who dwell in the cities and on the farms (agrous) " to the 
house of worship. Tertullian describes the pagans as 
12 



178 The Historic Episcopate 

loud in their complaints "that the city is taken possession 
of, and that in the farms, the fortresses and the islands 
Christians are found." Origen boasts to Celsus that the 
Christians " neglect not to sow the seed of the word every- 
where in the world, and that some make it their business 
to go around not only the cities but the villages and farms, 
that they may make still others pious toward God." 

These statements need not mislead us into supposing 
that a very large share of the people of the Roman world 
around the Mediterranean lived outside the cities. That 
was true only of Egypt and the northern countries. But 
there was room and need for many country churches, 
and they either were formed by missionary work on the 
part of the clergy of the nearest city, or grew up inde- 
pendently, and came to have their body of presbyters, or, 
in later times, their monarchic bishops. We hear as early 
as A. D. 269 of bishops of country churches, and somewhat 
later the term chorepiscopus comes into use to mark them 
as a separate and inferior class of bishops, whose absorp- 
tion into the city dioceses was a question of time. 1 The 
Council of Ancyra forbade them to ordain presbyters and 
deacons, thus reducing them to the level of city presbyters. 
Nothing more natural than to put such a presbyter into 
their place when a vacancy occurred, so that the class of 
chorepiscopi disappeared from the Church. 

Similar aggressions on weaker urban sees have left their 
traces in the acts of the councils of the fourth century, 
in canons forbidding the invasion by a bishop of neighbor- 
ing sees, and the reception to communion, and even to 
office, of clerics who had been excommunicated by their 
own bishops. The smaller sees were evidently losing 
ground; and the Cyprianic theory of the equality of all 
bishops, and their responsibility to God only, was replaced 

iRothe's Kirchengeschichte (Heidelberg, 1875), i, 336-350. 



From Pastor to Prelate 179 

by one which corresponded to the ideas of unity and 
authority on which Cyprian had acted. Consolidation 
ami subordination were "in the air," and everybody 
seemed to be impressed with their advantages. 

V. This process was greatly accelerated by the change 
of relations of the empire to the Church. 

In every age the attraction of the organization of civil 
society has exercised an assimilating influence upon the 
polity of the Church. So Patrick shaped his wonderful 
missionary Church of Ireland upon the tribal constitution 
of the Irish people, and gave it rootless bishops, sine 
titulo, who went freely on mission work, wherever a field 
of labor was open to them. Every great political trans- 
formation has tended to carry the Church with it in imita- 
tion of whatever change is generally welcomed as a re- 
form. So Hildebrand found that the shift of the feudal 
system from life-tenure of benefices to hereditary tenure 
was bringing the western Church under the yoke of a heredi- 
tary clergy; and he established the rule of clerical celi- 
bacy to avert the calamity. 

In the first centuries of Christian history the Roman 
Empire was passing through a series of changes by which 
"the principate founded by Augustus was finally trans- 
formed into an undisguised absolutism," involving dis- 
placement of civil by military authority, and the reduc- 
tion of local self-government almost to an empty form. 
This reached what seemed its goal in the imperial system 
elaborated by the Emperor Diocletian, A. D. 286-292, 
on the eve of the religious revolution wrought by Con- 
stantine. Diocletian divided the Roman world into four 
great dioceses, ruled by two principal and two subordi- 
nate emperors, and subdivided into provinces. At the 
same time all the simplicity of forms which the early 
empire had inherited from the republic disappeared, and 



180 The Historic Episcopate 

oriental formality took its place. To the earlier purple, 
the emperors added a diadem; and access to their pres- 
ence was barred by a courtly etiquette and officials. 

The empire under its new forms retained and even in- 
creased that prestige which had clung to it from the time 
of Augustus. The Roman peace, which had made com- 
merce safe all round the Mediterranean; the extension of 
the great and just code of the civil law over peoples of 
a far lower jural development; the diffusion of Greco- 
Roman art, architecture and literature through a thousand 
cities; the stability of actual government even when rival 
emperors were fighting for the purple — these were its 
solid claims to being regarded as the most beneficent rule 
that had ever been set over mankind. Even the Chris- 
tians, who had felt the weight of its hand in bloody per- 
secutions, did not cease to regard it as a providential 
creation of the greatest value. For, after all, it had es- 
tablished and maintained the conditions which made 
possible the preaching of the gospel to so large a part of 
the human race. Along its great military roads, apostles, 
evangelists and humbler missionaries of the cross had 
passed from land to land. Under its protection they, like 
other travelers, were secure of life, and able to make their 
way to any field of labor. Its general religious indifference 
furnished them a safeguard, except in times when a fresh 
alarm was raised by their success, and persecution again 
became the order of the day. 

When at last it became a Christian empire, it grew ten- 
fold more admirable, especially to the clergy of the Church. 
It authorized and encouraged the churches to build basil- 
icas, and allowed them to accept, inherit and hold property 
of any kind, in perpetual tenure, as the priesthoods of 
the pagan temples had done. It called great councils 
to protect the Church against false doctrines, furnished 



From Pastor to Prelate 181 

the bishops and their company free transportation to the 
place of nurting, and enforced their decisions by inflicting 
civil penalties upon heretics. It even took up the old 
quarrels, which began before the empire became Chris- 
tian. It seized the churches of the Donatist majority in 
Africa and of the Montanist majority in Phrygia, forbade 
their assemblies, burnt their books, confiscated any pri- 
vate house in which they met, declared them incapable 
of inheriting property and of testifying in courts of law, 
set free their slaves, authorized their nearest Catholic 
relatives to take possession of their estates, and drove 
them from the cities in which they had lived. It dug up 
and burnt the bones of the Montanist prophets. Both 
these sects had suffered for their confession of the Name; 
both held fast by the faith formulated at Nicsea. But 
both suffered at the hands of the Christian emperors, 
and at the instigation of Catholic bishops, more than 
they had endured under Decius and Diocletian. The 
Donatists w r ere threatened with death; but, thanks to 
Augustine, it was not inflicted except in some cases by 
their own hands, as despair drove them to suicide. That 
penalty was first inflicted by the usurper Maximus upon 
the Priscillianists of Gaul, at the instance of two Catholic 
bishops, in A. D. 385. 1 

It is not surprising that clerics who had been taught to 
set an excessive value on the external unity and the 
orthodox uniformity of the Church, and who could have 
said with Augustine to the Donatist, "You can find 
salvation only in the Catholic Church," saw in these 
things the fulfillment of the prophecy, "Kings shall be thy 
nursing fathers, and their queens thy nursing mothers" 
(Isaiah xlix: 23); and that they invested the em- 

1 Articles on "Donatism" (by J. M. Fuller) and on"Montanus" (by George 
Salmon) in the Dictionary of Christian Biography. 



182 The Historic Episcopate 

perors with more than the prerogative of the Jewish kings 
in the regulation of religion. The official imperial view 
seems to have been that Christianity had taken the 
place of the pagan religion as a department of the civil 
service. The position of the orthodox Church in Russia 
still perpetuates the status of the Church generally under 
the early Christian emperors, and reminds us of what 
Christendom owes to those mediaeval popes who fought 
for the emancipation of the Church from imperial rule. 

It was in this situation, and under the influence of this 
passionate admiration for the greatness and even the 
sanctity of the empire, that the episcopate took the shape 
in which it still exists in both eastern and western Chris- 
tendom. The Church ceased to be urban, and became 
imperial, forming itself as a great visible corporation on 
the lines of the Roman Empire, as Dr. Hatch says, and 
constituting a graded hierarchy within exactly the same 
limits, and on the same footing, as the hierarchy of im- 
perial officials. The bishop ceased to be the pastor, and 
forgot his Lord's warning against likeness to civil rulers. 
He copied their pomp, their insolence, and their luxury. 
When Pope Damasus urged the Roman senator, Praetex- 
tatus, to become a Christian, he was met with the answer, 
"Make me Bishop of Rome, and I will be a Christian 
to-morrow!" 

While the episcopate was thus approximating to the 
state and glory of "the rulers of the Gentiles" (Matthew 
xx : 25), the bishops were letting slip from them those 
pastoral duties which the title episkopos was meant to 
emphasize, and were delegating these to subordinates 
in the Church. The cure of souls, which the Ignatian 
epistles, the writings of Cyprian and the apostolical 
canons — to say nothing of the Apostles Paul (Acts xx : 28) 
and Peter (1 Peter ii: 25; v: 2) — exhibit as the especial 






From Pastor to Prelate 183 

work of the bishop, was passing of necessity to the presby- 
ters. To them the real episcopate now returned, while the 
name and the shepherd's crook (crozier) remained with 
those who had abandoned that work for one which had a 
show of spiritual usefulness without the substance. 

If we were asked to point out an English ecclesiastic 
whose labors corresponded to those of an Ignatian or 
Cyprianic bishop, it would not be a prelate who, though 
as zealous and active within his possibilities as the present 
Bishop of London, could be known personally to but a 
fraction of the people of his " flock." It would be to 
Richard Baxter in his pastorate in Kidderminster; or to 
a parish rector of the type described by Mr. Mozley in 
the twenty-ninth chapter of his Reminiscences of the Oxford 
Movement; or to Dr. Hook, the Vicar of Leeds, laboring 
among those headstrong Yorkshiremen, whose rough ways 
and speech had dismayed even John Wesley. These 
were bishops indeed, who knew their people and had a 
greeting for every one of their flock. They labored not 
only for and in the pulpit, as did the Evangelical clergy, 
but in the homes and on the streets of their parishes. 
They were consulted at every crisis of life by the families 
of their flock; they gave advice in perplexity, comforted 
in sorrow, sympathized with joy, applauded what was 
right and discouraged what was wrong. 

It was exactly this class of English clergymen who also 
were most like the parish ministers of the Scottish Kirk. 
Even Boswell, with all his leaning to the Church of Eng- 
land, insisted to Dr. Johnson upon "the assiduity of the 
Scottish clergy in visiting and privately instructing their 
parishioners, and observed how much in this they excelled 
the English clergy," and would not allow that Anglican 
Tory to put him off with the assertion that the English 
clergy excelled in learning. But they had one great 



1 5 4 The Historic Episcopate 

advantage over men like Dr. Hook, in having associated 
with them the elders of the parish, whose weight of 
experience and of influence added greatly to the authority 
with which the Church approached the people to whom 
she was ministering. The office stands so high in the 
esteem of the Scottish people that the greatest in the land 
do not refuse it. Sir Walter Scott was an elder of Dud- 
dingston parish; the late Duke of Argyle and the present 
Earl of Aberdeen and Lord Balfour of Burleigh are of the 
many who combined it with the peerage. Dr. Hook's 
church wardens were his associates only in the care of 
church property; and his curates were younger men of 
his own selection, who were more likely to echo his opin- 
ions than to form judgments of their own. 

"Let us not forget."' says Canon Bruce, "that the three 
orders of the ministry in Asia in the beginning [?] of the 
second century- were not a bishop over a diocese and a 
single presbyter with no deacon in each congregation; 
but an episcopus. a council of presbyters, and a number 
of deacons in each congregation. Many non-Episcopal 
churches retain, we believe, these three orders, while the 
Episcopal churches have given them up. Is it not our 
neglect, as Episcopalians, of these apostolic orders of 
ministry that paralyzes our work, and deprives us of the 
cooperation of the laity?" ' : 

-:*Qhc Order and Unity, p. 122. 



CHAPTER VII 

The Episcopate of the Middle Ages 

The phrase "the historic episcopate" implies an appeal 
to the record made by the monarchic episcopate in all the 
phases of its history. Those who use it as recommending 
that to the modern Church, accept a certain responsibility 
for the whole course of its development, and its entire 
influence upon the religious life of Christendom. 

Even its eulogists will hardly claim that its mediaeval 
aspect suggests that separateness from the world, that 
humility of self-estimate, and that brotherly and long- 
suffering kindness, which our Lord and his Apostles speak 
of as characteristic of the Church and its ministers. We 
have, indeed, got past that indiscriminate abuse of the 
Middle Ages, which was made the fashion by the II- 
luminati of the eighteenth century. We have come to 
talk with more fairness of a time which, both in its achieve- 
ments and its monuments, takes rank with the great ages 
of human history. We have ceased to look to some small 
and hardly known sect for the continuity of the Church 
through the centuries between Augustine and Luther. 
In the great central current of European history we see 
God working through many confusions, and in despite of 
much human willfulness, to grand and lasting results of 
good. But each of the elements of that time — the papacy, 
the hierarchy, the monastic orders, the empire, the feudal 
kingship, the university, the Crusades, the Inquisition — 
must stand on its own merits at the bar of history, and 

185 



1 86 The Historic Episcopate 

answer for the use it made of its opportunities for the 
service of mankind. 

The episcopate set out with as great advantages for 
good work as any other of these. It possessed the confi- 
dence of kings, kinship in most cases with the feudal 
nobility, an extensive and intensive authority over great 
dioceses, the monopoly of the councils of the Church, and 
the profound respect of the common people. It was 
able constantly to absorb men of ability and piety into 
its ranks. At the date of the coronation of Charles the 
Great, which established the new empire of the west 
(A. D. 800), it had the spiritual direction of Europe in its 
hands. At the appearance of Martin Luther, as the 
reformer of Teutonic Christendom, it had fallen in point 
of influence almost as low as had the empire. The papacy, 
the monastic orders, the new kingship and the university 
had outstripped it. 

This change of estimate grew out of the inability of the 
bishops of the Middle Ages to make themselves felt by 
the people as in any way a beneficial order of men. The 
great dioceses of northern Europe were far beyond the 
reach of their prelates for pastoral work of any kind; 
and what they might have done, they generally neglected. 
"The office of preacher," says Mr. Lea, "was especially 
an episcopal function; he was the only man in the diocese 
authorized to exercise it; it formed no part of the duty or 
training of the parish priest, who could not presume to 
deliver a sermon without a special license from his superior. 
. . . . The turbulent and martial prelates of the day 
were too wholly engrossed in worldly cares to bestow a 
thought upon the matter, for which their unfitness was 
complete." Hence, after four centuries of episcopal 
neglect, the rise of the mendicant orders to fill the void. 
Down to the Reformation, hardly one of the eminent 



The Episcopate oj the Middle Ages 187 

preachers is a bishop, Anselm of Canterbury and Hildebert 
of Tours being the exceptions I have observed. 

This resulted not only in the profound ignorance and 
indifference of the common people, and the permanence 
of superstitions derived from their previous paganism, 
but also the spread of wild heresies through Italy, southern 
France and northern Spain. It was the duty of the bishops 
to deal with these by persuasion and — as that age judged — 
by measures of repression. In their diocesan courts the 
equitable provisions of the Roman law for the protection 
of accused persons were in force. But the negligence of 
the bishops, their sloth and indifference, and their absorp- 
tion in worldly cares and quarrels were regarded as suf- 
ficient reason for transferring the duty to the Inquisition 
conducted by members of the mendicant orders, in which 
all such legal safeguards were ignored and torture was 
employed to extort confessions. 

We can learn something of the esteem in which the 
office was held from the attitude of some of the best men 
of the time toward it. Thomas Aquinas, Peter of Blois, 
and Peter Cantor refused the office. Albert the Great was 
overpersuaded into accepting it, but got rid of it after 
three years. A prior of Clairvaux, in Bernard's time, was 
chosen to a bishopric, but declared he would rather be a 
tramp ! One of his friends reported that the prior appeared 
to him after death, and declared that if he had accepted 
he would have been lost eternally. A Paris churchman 
expressed his doubt of the salvation of any German bishop, 
in view of the way in which ecclesiastical and civil power 
were combined in the office. 1 

The names which make the Middle Ages illustrious are 
seldom those of bishops. (1) Of the workers for the 
reform of the Church they have Claudius of Turin, Rath- 

1 Henry C. Lea's History of the Inquisition of the Middle Ages, i, 13. 



1 88 The Historic Episcopate 

erius of Verona, Hildebert of Tours, Agobard of Lyons, 
Richard Fitzralph of Armagh, Robert Grosstete of Lin- 
coln, and Pierre d'Ailly of Cambrai. But alongside these 
stand Ratramnus of Corbey, Berengar of Tours, Bernard 
of Clairvaux, Arnold of Brescia, Peter Damiani, Peter 
Waldo, Francis of Assisi, William of Saint Amour, Peter 
of Blois, John Wyclif, John Huss, Jerome of Prague, 
Gerard Groot and his order, John Gerson, John Wessel, 
and Nicholas of Clamanges. 

(2) Among the episcopal theologians and philosophers 
we have Anselm of Canterbury, Peter Lombard (Bishop 
of Paris for the last five years of his life), John of Salisbury, 
Albert the Great, John Bonaventura, Thomas Brad- 
wardine, and Nicholas of Kuss. But among what English 
writers used to call "the inferior clergy," we have John 
Scotus Erigena, Gottschalk, Paschasius Radbertus, Ra- 
tramnus of Corbey, Berengar of Turin, Peter Abaillard, 
Bernard of Clairvaux, Robert Pulleyn, Hugo, Richard 
and Walter of Saint Victor, Rupert of Deutz, Roger 
Bacon, Raymond Lull, Thomas Aquinas, John Duns 
Scotus, William Ockham, Master Eckart, Jan Ruis- 
broek and John Gerson. 

(3) Among the notable mystics, Bishops Anselm of 
Canterbury, John Bonaventura, Albert the Great and 
Nicholas of Kuss hold rather a secondary place. But 
Erigena, Bernard, Joachim of Flores, Francis of Assisi, 
the Victorines, Rupert of Deutz, Eckart, John Tauler, 
Henry Suso, Nicholas of Strasburg, Ruisbroek, Otto of 
Passau, Gerard Groot, Thomas a Kempis, Walter Hilton, 
Richard Rolle of Hampoole, Vincent Ferrier and John 
Gerson hold the foremost place. 

(4) Among the great Latin hymnodists are Bishops 
Theodulph of Orleans, Hildebert of Tours, and Bonaven- 
tura. But far greater eminence belongs to Walafried 



The Kpiscopdlc oj (he Middle Ages 189 

Strabo, Notker of Saint Gall, Bernard of Clairvaux, Odo, 
Odflo, Peter and Bernard of Clugny, Peter Damiani, 
Herrmann of Rrichenau, Adam of Saint Victor, Thomas 
of Celano, Thomas Aquinas, Jacoponi da Todi, John 
Huss and Thomas a Kempis. 

(5) Among the outstanding historical scholars we have, 
among the bishops, John of Salisbury, Otto of Freysingen, 
iEneas Sylvius, and Antonino of Florence. But outside 
their order, and yet churchmen, are Widukind of Corbey, 
Luitprand, Peter of Clugny, Lambert of AscharTenberg, 
Adam of Bremen, Matthew Paris, Conrad of Lichtenau, 
Saxo Grammaticus, Gottfried of Viterbo, Vincent of 
Beauvais, Geraldus Cambrensis, Salimbene of Parma, 
Nicholas of Clamanges, Platina of Rome and John of 
Trittenheim. 

The type of man their position could not but develop 
was the hierarch, w r ho fought for the privileges and im- 
munities of the Church — meaning mostly its clergy — 
against encroaching statesmen or erratic heretics. Such 
were Hincmar of Rheims, Agobard of Lyons, Rabanus 
Maurus of Maintz, Gregory VII of Rome, Dunstan, 
iElfric, Lanfranc, Anselm and Becket of Canterbury, 
Ratherius of Verona, Innocent III and Boniface VIII of 
Rome and Nicholas of Kuss. A few of them, such as 
Hildebert, Langton and Grosstete, stood against the 
encroachments of Rome, in defence of the rights of the 
national churches. 

The great schism of the fifteenth century gave the epis- 
copate its opportunity to vindicate the view that their 
collective body, in council assembled, was superior to the 
pope, and could undertake "a reformation of the Church 
in its head and its members." With that object they met 
in council at Constance (1414-1418) and Basel (1431- 
1443) ; but their movement failed signally. The papacy, 



190 The Historic Episcopate 

united after the schism of nearly forty years, proved 
stronger in the affection of the Christian people. Far- 
seeing men, like Nicholas of Kuss, deserted the Council of 
Basel. Genuine reformers were disgusted by its judicial 
murder of John Huss and Jerome of Prague, who had 
appealed to its justice. The collapse was but a part of the 
general failure of the bishops of western Christendom to 
command the respect and affection of the Christian people. 1 
Their love of worldly splendor and wealth, their dissolute 
lives, their frequent quarrels with each other and with the 
civil power, their palpable uselessness for any spiritual 
service, and the oppression exercised by their episcopal 
courts and officials, forfeited the confidence of the people, 
and led all who aspired to a better life for the Church to 
look elsewhere for a dawn of the day of the Lord. 

A modern wit has said that the bishops went into the 
Council of the Vatican in 1870 shepherds, and came out 
sheep. It was just because they were not shepherds in 
any right sense, nor indeed could be with such dioceses 
on their hands, that the bishops of northern Europe under- 
went that decline of spiritual power and social influence 
which at last put them into a helpless subordination to 
the papacy, or, in Protestant countries, to the civil power. 

While Germany was the worst in this respect, England 
was not far behind her in the erection of the episcopate 
into a provincial jurisdiction, the absorption of its func- 
tions into a semi-political administration and the conse- 
quent neglect of really pastoral duties. At first there was 
but one bishop for each of the kingdoms into which the 
island was divided, even after the conversion of the Eng- 
lish by Irish and Italian missionaries. He was called the 
bishop of the people among whom he resided, and was the 

1 The Christian Ministry, by Dr. William Lefrov, Dean of Norwich (London 
and New York, 1891), pp. 353-354 n. 



The Episcopate of (he Middle Ages 191 

chaplain of their king. Those of the northern kingdoms 
were bishops after the fashion of the Irish church, which 
gave the bishop a place corresponding to the brehon 
of the Irish sept; and when Wilfrid was chosen bishop of 
the see of York, he would not accept ordination at their 
hands. Passing by the bishops of south England equally, 
he went over to Gaul and was consecrated at Compiegne. 
In 673 Theodore of Tarsus, the seventh Archbishop of 
Canterbury, held a national synod, by which the church 
in England was organized into a diocesan system like 
that of France and Germany. Seven bishops were exer- 
cising jurisdiction over all the island from the British 
Channel to the Firth of Forth: Canterbury, Rochester, 
London, East Anglia (Dunwich), Lichfield, Winchester 
and York. These were now located each at some episcopal 
city, where this had not been already done, and others 
w r ere established by division of the older sees. It was 
resolved to make "more bishops as the number of the 
faithful increased"; and in the lifetime of Theodore nine 
were added, mostly by his efforts. Before the Norman 
Conquest were set up the sees of Elmham (by division 
from Dunwich), Selsey (Chichester), Crediton (Exeter), 
Worcester, Dorchester (Lincoln), Sherborne, Ramsbury, 
Hereford, Hexham, Lindisfarne, Lindsey (Ripon) and 
Leicester. Dunham and Elmham were afterwards 
united into Norwich; Hexham and Lindisfarne into 
Durham; Sherborne and Ramsbury into Salisbury. 
After the conquest were established Wells (Bath and 
Wells), Ely and Carlisle. 1 To these eighteen sees not 
another was added until the Reformation, when Henry 

1 Chapters of Early English Church History, by Dr. Wm. Bright (Oxford, 
1878). J. R. Green's The Making of England. I have not taken into account 
the four Welsh sees of Llandaff, Saint David's, Bangor and Saint Asaph, as 
their connection with the church in England is late and superficial, beginning 
with the conquest of Waleg (1277-1284). Man was added in the fifteenth cen- 
tury. 



192 The Historic Episcopate 

VIII used a part of the spoils of the monasteries to endow 
six more. In the meantime the population had increased 
from less than two millions to more than five. 

The dioceses of early England corresponded in a general 
way first to the old kingdoms, and then to the shires into 
which the country was divided for purposes of civil rule. 
In the shire-mote, which administered justice, the earl 
and the bishop presided jointly, until William introduced 
the Norman way of distinguishing sharply between civil 
and ecclesiastical jurisdiction. The older arrangement 
distracted the bishops from their proper work and identi- 
fied them with political affairs. As on the continent, 
there was a tendency toward a hereditary clergy, through 
bishop and priest securing the succession to his benefice 
for his son, at a time when secular benefices were under- 
going the change from life tenure to that by inheritance. 
It was to stop this that Hildebrand set about enforcing 
the rule of celibacy on the clergy of the west; and we find 
Dunstan of Canterbury laboring rather ineffectually to 
establish this rule in England. 

Up to the Norman Conquest the story of the church in 
England is one of almost constant relapse into the vices 
of paganism, and of the helplessness of an ignorant clergy 
and a worldly episcopate to stem the tide, with here and 
there a king like Alfred or Eadward, or a bishop like 
Dunstan or Wilfrith, laboring to establish order. It was 
Eadward's conviction that nothing could save English 
Christianity short of the introduction of the spiritual 
energy possessed by Norman churchmen, which led him 
to take the steps which resulted in William's becoming 
king of the English. 

This change did bring into English sees men of stalwart 
mould in Lanfranc, Anselm, Theodulph and Becket — 
bishops known and respected throughout Christendom. 



The Episcopate of the Middle Ages 193 

But for a time the gain was small, through the new pre- 
lates being alien in speech and thought to the people they 
came to rule. 

"The Norman bishop/' says Mr. Freeman, "ignorant 
of the English tongue, stood in a very different position 
from his English predecessor. There was, in the nature of 
things, a gap between him and the mass of his flock and 
of his clergy. . . . And everything tended to make 
the gap grow wider and wider. The first set of bishops of 
William's appointment were, for the most part, men well 
fitted, except in their foreign birth, for the office in which 
they were placed. But when, in the later days of the 
Conqueror, and in the reign of Henry I — to say nothing 
of the mere corruption and simony of Rufus — bishoprics 
were systematically given away to the king's clerks as 
the reward of their temporal services, when the king's 
chancellor succeeded to a bishopric as a matter of course, 
the change in the position of the bishops grew more and 
more marked. The bishop so appointed had commonly 
the habits of a courtier and a man of business, rather than 
those of a churchman. And all the recent changes 
tended to strengthen the temporal side of his office at the 
expense of its spiritual side. He, indeed, no longer sat, 
directly in his character as bishop, as joint president 
with the ealderman in the assembly of the shire. But 
he not uncommonly appeared there in the more distinctly 
temporal character of a royal missus; and the devices of 
Roger Flambard had given him a new character, alike in 
the kingdom at large and in his own diocese and his own 
house. As an English freeman, he had always been a 
member of the national assembly. As a father of the 
Church, he had often been the special counsellor of the 
king. But now he had become a baron, holding his 
lands by military tenure, a character which in the larger 
T 3 



194 The Historic Episcopate 

and wealthier dioceses clothed its owner with a good deal 
of the character of a wealthy prince. The bishop had his 
manors, and on his manors, as on those of other lords, 
castles often arose. He had his military retinue; even 
the mild Wulfstan was surrounded in Norman fashion by a 
following of knights. All this tended to strengthen the 
character of the lord at the expense of the overseer of the 
flock. In accordance with the spirit of the time, even 
purely ecclesiastical relations became feudalized. The 
bishop seemed to have become a feudal lord, with the 
lesser clergy to his vassals. We now hear less of the duty 
of the chief pastor to overlook both shepherds and flocks 
within the range of his authority, and we hear more of 
the rights of visitation which the episcopal or abbatial 
church holds over the lesser churches. These were rights 
which bishops and abbots, no less than kings, valued as a 
source of profit as well as of dignity and power. Money, 
so powerful with those who exercised jurisdiction in the 
king's name, was not without its weight with those who 
exercised it in the bishop's name. The archdeacons of 
the twelfth century had won for themselves a reputation 
as bad as that of the sheriffs. In everything the tendency 
was to put the benefice before the office, possession and 
right before duty. Everything helped to stiffen the 
fatherly care of the shepherd and bishop of souls into a 
formal jurisdiction exercised according to a rigid and 
technical law. The bishop, like the king, had made him- 
self lord over God's heritage, in a sense which was as 
strange to the democracy of the primitive Church as it 
was to the democracy of the old Teutonic community. 
Good bishops, like good kings, might rise above the temp- 
tations among which they were placed; but the tendency 
to secularity which beset all the Teutonic churches from 
the beginning, both grew in strength and put on a worse 



The Episcopate oj the Middle Ages 195 

form through the changes which followed on the Norman 
Conquest." 1 

The secular position thus created with a spiritual title 
was a natural object of ambition to the great families, who 
sought especially the wealthier sees for their younger sons, 
without any regard to spiritual fitness. These in turn 
threw themselves into the political and military struggles 
of their time for the support of their kinsmen. They 
stand out in all the distractions of the period as implacable 
foes and merciless conquerors. In the anarchy, for in- 
stance, which fills the greater part of the reign of Stephen, 
the bishops showed themselves as violent, tyrannical and 
unprincipled as the worst of the nobles; and not one of 
them comes forward as a peacemaker to bring to an end 
the miseries inflicted by the wars upon the common people. 

It would have been hard, indeed, to devise a system of 
Church rule more in contrast with that of the first days of 
the Church than was the prelatic episcopacy of the church 
in England, France and Germany during this period. 
Worldly pride and pomp, a keen resentment of everything 
which intruded upon "the rights of the Church," a com- 
plete indifference to the duties and responsibilities of the 
Christian ministry and to the rights of the Christian people, 
were the common features of the class. The fleece and 
not the flock was the object of these shepherds' concern. 
Here and there a Grosstete or a Pecock rose to a higher 
and better level, but too seldom to alter the general con- 
dition. Even these were able to do but little good, 
under the pressure of unspiritual duties attached to their 
office, and with their huge dioceses stretching far beyond 
the power of any human being to reach them with effective 
influence. 

1 The History of the Norman Conquest of England, its Causes and its Results. 
By Edward A. Freeman. Vol. v, pp. 332-333. Oxford and New York, 1876. 



196 The Historic Episcopate 

Yet the theory of the historic position of the monarchic 
episcopate and its spiritual authority current during the 
Middle Ages was not that its preeminence was matter 
of original intention and divine right. When the doctrine 
of transubstantiation attained a general acceptance, it 
elevated the priest to such a height of spiritual power and 
prerogative as made the difference between the bishops 
and the other priests seem relatively insignificant, and 
prepared people to hear that that difference was an in- 
novation upon an original equality. The authority of 
Jerome on this point had come to be accepted generally 
throughout the west; and his statements on the subject 
had worked their way into the text-books of theology and 
the canon law. And in an age which placed the traditions 
of the Church on a level with the Scriptures in point of 
authority, no one saw in this belief any reason for altering 
or abolishing the episcopal system of rule. That question 
could arise only when a higher authority for the Scriptures 
came to be asserted and widely accepted. 

Among Jerome's contemporaries in the fifth century 
we find John Chrysostom in the eastern church (in his 
homily on Philippians i: 1), Theodore of Mopsuestia 
(350-428), and his disciple Theodoret (393-458), in agree- 
ment with Jerome, through their independent study of 
the New Testament. In the west Augustine of Hippo 
(354-430) says in a letter to Jerome that: "After the names 
of honor, which the custom of the Church hath now ob- 
tained, the office of a bishop is above the office of a priest" 
{Secundum honorum vocabula, quce jam ecclesioe usus 
obtinuit, episcopatus presbyterio major est), implying, as 
Bishop Jewell says, that this is "not by the authority of 
the Scriptures." 

In the next (sixth) century there are in agreement with 
Jerome, Gregory the Great (543-607), Primasius (A. D. 



The Episcopate oj the Middle Ages 197 

553) in his treatise on Heresies, Theophylact of Simo- 
catta (570-630), and to some degree, Isidore of Seville 
(570-636). This last, in the seventh book of his Ety- 
mologies, says: 

Presbyter is Greek for elder, so named not only on account of 
age, but also on account of the honor and dignity which the 
presbyters have received. Hence with the ancients, bishops and 
presbyters were the same, because the name is one of dignity, 
and not of age. Presbyters as well as bishops are called priests, 
because they minister in sacred things; and yet, though priests, 
they have not attained to the height of the pontificate, since 
they do not sign the forehead with chrism, nor give the Spirit, 
which, as the Acts of the Apostles shows (!), belongs to the 
bishops alone. 1 

I leave the compiler Isidore to settle his differences 
with Isidore and with Luke. In his treatise Concerning 
Ecclesiastical Offices, he says of presbyters: "To these, 
as to the bishops, the stewardship of the mysteries of God 
has been intrusted, for they preside over the churches of 
Christ, and are associated with the bishops in administra- 
tion of his body and blood; likewise in teaching the people 
and in the duty of preaching; but only on account of 
authority ordination of clerics has been reserved to the 
chief priest, lest the discipline of the Church being claimed 
by many, might dissolve its harmony and cause scandals." 
The second Synod of Seville, held in his time, A. D. 619, 
to dispose of some irregularities in the church of Cordova, 
is found echoing Jerome. It says of presbyters: "For 
although many services of the ministry are common to 
them with the bishops, they know that some are forbidden 
to them by new and eccelsiastical rules (novellis et ec- 
clesiasticis regulis prohibita sunt), as the consecration of 
presbyters and deacons and virgins." Dr. Stillingfleet's 
Irenicon, pp. 338-339. 

In the eleventh century the Greek expositor (Ecumenius 

1 Migne's Patrologia Latina, lxxxii, 292. 



198 The Historic Episcopate 

maintained Jerome's view in the east. In the west this 
is done by Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109), and by 
Bernard of Constance (A. D. 1088), one of Hildebrand's 
supporters, in his treatise Concerning the Office of Presbyters 
(De Officio Presbyterorum) . He quotes Jerome, and adds: 

Since then in old times (antiquitus) presbyters and bishops 
are said to have been the same, there is no doubt that they 
possessed the power of binding and loosing, and other things 
now peculiar (specialia) to the bishops. But after the presby- 
ters were restrained from the episcopal eminence, that began 
to be unlawful, which ecclesiastical authority assigned to the 
bishops for its execution. 

Near the close of the century, in A. D. 1091, Pope 
Urban II presided at the Council of Beneventum, which 
adopted a canon: 

Let no one be chosen bishop, unless he be found living in holy 
orders. But we call the diaconate and the presbyterate holy 
orders. These alone, indeed, the primitive Church is said to 
have had. As to these alone we have the injunction of an 
Apostle. 1 

The twelfth century saw the beginnings of the effort 
to reduce the doctrine and discipline of the Latin church 
to systematic form. The latter was the work of the 
Tuscan canonist Gratian, of the Benedictine order. His 
Decretum, compiled about A. D. 1151, at once became the 
text-book of the west, and was made the subject of count- 
less commentaries. He adopted, as authoritative on the 
relations of the bishop and the presbyter, the language of 
Jerome, that of Isidore and the canon of the Council of 
Beneventum. In this he was followed by the canonists 
generally down to the last quarter of the sixteenth century. 
The great Ghibelline canonist, Antonius de Rosellis of 

1 Nullus deinceps in episcopum eligatur nisi qui in sacris ordinibua vivens 
inventus est. Sacros autem ordines dicimus diaconatum et presbyteratum. 
Hos siquidem solos primitiva legitur Ecclesia habuisse. Super his solum prae- 
ceptum habemus Apostoli. (J. D. Mansi: Sacrorum Conciliorum Collectio, 
xx, 735f. 



The Episcopate oj the Middle Ages 199 

Padua (1400-1467), is quoted in this sense. So Nicolo 
Tedeschi (1389-1445), Archbishop of Palermo, in his 
Commentary on the Decretals, says that "formerly presby- 
ters ruled the church in common, and ordained priests" 
(Olim presbyteri in commune regebant Ecclesiam et ordina- 
bant sacerdotes). As late as A. D. 1570, Giovanni Paolo 
Lancelotti, in his Institutes of Canon Law, written at the 
instance of Pope Paul V, repeats Jerome's statements 
without a question. 

What Gratian did for canon law, just about the same 
time Peter the Lombard did for dogmatic theology in his 
Four Books of Sentences (Sententiarum Libri IV), which 
also became the text-book of hundreds of commentators, 
especially after the Council of the Lateran (1215) com- 
mended it. In treating the sacraments he followed the 
authority of Jerome, in making bishops and presbyters one 
order, and in asserting their original equality he says: 
"With the ancients bishops and presbyters were the same. 
. . . . The canons excellently judge that there are 
only two holy orders, to wit, the diaconate and the 
presbyterate, because these are all the primitive Church is 
said to have had, and for these only we have the authority 
of the Apostle." Alexander of Hales (ob. 1245) and 
John Bonaventura (1221-1274), the first systematic 
theologians of the Franciscan order, both agree with him 
in following Jerome. The latter says: "The episcopate 
is not properly an order, but an eminence or dignity of 
order; nor is any new character conferred in it" (Episco- 
patus proprie non est ordo, sed ordinis eminentia vel dignitas; 
nee in eo novus character imprimitur). 

His still greater friend, the Dominican Thomas Aquinas 
(1225-1274), did not complete his Summa, so that the 
discussion of the sacraments given in ordinary editions is 
taken from his commentary on Peter the Lombard's 



200 The Historic Episcopate 

Sentences. The fortieth "question" is "Whether the 
Episcopate Is an Order?" (Utrum Episcopatus Sit 
Ordof) and it is handled in his usual method of offering 
first the reasons on one side, and then the reasons on the 
other, and concluding with a "solution" of the problem. 
He takes no interest in the historical discussion, and there- 
fore makes no reference to Jerome. Dionysius the Are- 
opagite is an authority sufficient for him. His second 
reason for the affirmative is from the bishop possessing the 
power to confer the sacraments of ordination and confir- 
mation, which priests do not, since "order is nothing else 
than a degree of power of dispensing spiritual things." 
To those who deny that ordination and confirmation are 
sacraments, and hold they may be dispensed by a presby- 
ter, the argument is worth little. He admits that the 
power of the priest to officiate in the eucharist, the highest 
act of worship, tells heavily against the claim of the epis- 
copate to rank as a distinct order (Ordinatur omnis ordo 
ad Eucharistice sacr amentum. Unde cum Episcopus non 
habeat potestatem superiorem Sacerdote, quantum ad hoc 
episcopatus non est ordo) . So he compromises, stating that 
it both is and is not an order, according to what you have 
in mind. If this be the great things of Christian worship, 
then it is not an order; if it be the less, it may be called 
an order (Ordo prout est sacramentum imprimens charac- 
terem, ordinatur specialiter ad sacramentum Eucharistia, in 
quo ipse Christus continetur, quia per characterem ipso 
Christo configuramur, et ideo detur aliqua potestas spiritualis 
Episcopo in sui promotionis respectu aliquorum sacra- 
mentorum; non tamen ilia potestas habet rationem characteris, 
et propter hoc Episcopatus non est ordo, secundum quod ordo 
est sacramentum quoddam). This shows the force of what 
has been said of the way in which the new conception of 
the eucharist brought priesthood up to episcopate. 



The Episcopate of the Middle Ages 201 

Among later theologians of the Middle Ages, Jerome's 
view of this question is to be found in the Summa Theo- 
logize of William of Auxerre (ob. 1223), in the Commentary 
on the Sentences of Peter the Lombard by William Durand 
of St. Pourcain (ob. 1233), and in those by Peter Aure- 
olus (1280-1322). Richard Fitzralph, the Archbishop of 
Armagh, whose writings suggested to John Wyclif criti- 
cisms of current abuses, maintains Jerome's view of the 
episcopate in his curious work on The Errors of the Armeni- 
ans (1360). So did Pierre d'Ailly (1350-1420), Archbishop 
of Cambrai, who, along with Archbishop Nicolo Tedeschi, 
the Sicilian canonist, took a leading part in the proceedings 
of the Council of Basel. 1 

In the age of the revival of learning the new scholarship 
and the freer spirit of investigation strengthened the 
tradition which began with Jerome. Erasmus, the first 
editor of his works, writes to Albert the Pius of Bavaria: 
"I can recall no one of the age of Jerome who calls any 
one a priest, who was not also a bishop, while Jerome 
assures us that in the age of Paul presbyters and bishops 
were the same." His friend and benefactor, Dr. John 
Colet (1477-1519), the famous Dean of St. Paul's, pre- 
sents the same view. He is commenting upon the Ec- 
clesiastical Hierarchy ascribed to Dionysius the Are- 
opagite, an apocryphal production which did much to 
give currency to the claims of monarchic episcopacy to 
apostolic origin and a divine right. Yet he appeals to 
Jerome as one who " proves by good evidence" that the 
office of priest was the highest in the primitive Church. 
"Still from the number of priests, though equal in office 

1 The subject of the survival and persistence of the Hieronyman tradition 
in the mediaeval Church of the west deserves an exhaustive treatment. The 
notices I have given are based on Richard Field's Of the Church, Five Books 
(Oxford, 1635; and Cambridge, 1847), vol. iv, pp. 150-152; Gieseler's Church 
History, vol. i, pp. 56-57 (Philadelphia, 1836); A. W. Dieckhoff'a Luther's 
Lehre von der kirchlichen Gewalt (Berlin, 1865), pp. 60 ff. 



202 The Historic Episcopate 

and rank, the first disciples and followers of the Apostles, 
immediately after the apostolic times (statim post Apos- 
tolos) made choice of one, and placed him at the head, 
for the settling of disputes and appeasing of strife, and 
for putting an end to contentions by his opinion and sen- 
tence, that the Church might abide in harmony. And he 
is not so much superior to other priests in office and dig- 
nity, since he performs no act more exalted than does 
every priest. He then began to be specially called a 
bishop — a name which under the Apostles belonged to all 
priests, until there was chosen the one I have just men- 
tioned." 1 

The earlier Roman Catholic theologians of the period of 
the Reformation took no new ground in the matter. 
Alfonso de Castro (1483-1542), who accompanied Philip 
II to England, and who wrote a controversial work, De 
Hceresibus; Gasparo Contareni (1483-1542), the lay car- 
dinal who labored for a reconciliation of the Protestants 
with the papacy; Dominicus a Soto (1484-1560), the 
greatest Spanish theologian at the Council of Trent; 
and George Cassander (1515-1566), who wrote of Protes- 
tantism in an irenic spirit, — all these accepted Jerome's 
view of the origin of episcopacy. In the twenty-first 
session of the Council of Trent (1562) the Italian bishops 
maintained the correctness of Jerome's view, against the 
Spaniards, declaring that the superiority of the bishop over 
the presbyter is due to a papal grant, and is not inherent 
in his office. 

It was Michael de Medina (ob. 1580), a Spanish 
Franciscan, who attended the Council of Trent, that first 
took alarm at this tradition inherited from Jerome, in 
view of John Calvin's contention that the Church could 

1 Two Treatises on the Hierarchies of Dionysius, by John Colet. Now first 
Published, with a Translation, Introduction, and Notes, by J. H. Luvton (London, 
1869), pp. 83-84, 219-220. 



The Episcopate oj the Middle Ages 203 

dispense with diocesan episcopacy without departing 
from either scriptural precedent or patristic authority. 
The Spaniard went so far as to declare that " those fath- 
ers" who taught this were " substantially heretics, but 
that the dogma had not been condemned in these fathers 
out of respect for them" (Illos Patres materiales hcereticos, 
scd in his Patribus ob eorum reverentiam hoc dogma non 
esse damnatum). Cardinal Bellarmin naturally objected 
to this as "very inconsiderate judgment" (sententiam 
valde inconsideratam) , and took the safer way of explaining 
away those awkward sayings of the fathers, scholastics 
and canonists; as well he might when the orthodoxy of 
Jerome, Anselm, Urban II and Bonaventura was at stake. 
In this he has been followed by later Roman Catholic 
canonists, not excepting the learned Oratorian, Jean 
Morin (1655), and the Jansenist, Z. B. van Espen (1700). 
When the Bishop of Chartres, in this last year, ventured 
to say, with Jerome, that there was no difference between 
bishops and priests under the Apostles, his chapter com- 
plained of this to the Assembly of the Gallican Church, 
which condemned his assertion as erroneous, rash, scandal- 
ous, etc. But the "tradition of the Church," from Jerome 
in the fifth century to Lancelotti in the sixteenth, is 
against the claim of the episcopate to originality in 
institution, and a superiority by divine right to the presby- 
terate. Cardinal Newman says that "apostolical suc- 
cession, its necessity and its grace, is not an Anglican 
tradition, though it is a tradition found in the Anglican 
Church." It is fair to ask whether it is a Roman Catholic 
tradition. 

Of course, the church in England — there was as yet no 
Church of England — during those eleven centuries held 
no different doctrine from that of Jerome, Gratian and the 
Lombard, as to the origin and worth of the distinction 



204 The Historic Episcopate 

between bishop and priest. Archbishop Anselm, Robert 
Pullen (ob. 1147), Oxford professor, who died at Rome 
chancellor of the church, and probably cardinal; Richard 
Fitzralph, who taught at Oxford before becoming primate 
of Ireland; and his disciple, John Wyclif, agree with 
Jerome. 

Nor did the agitations of the Reformation produce any 
alteration in this respect. In 1540 Henry VIII submitted 
to the commissioners appointed to draw up a statement 
of Christian doctrine, seventeen questions, of which the 
tenth was, " Whether bishops or priests were first; and 
if the priests were first, then the priest made the bishop?" 
We have answers from both the friends and the opponents 
of the Reformation, who had a place on that commission. 
Cranmer's answer is that "The bishops and priests were 
at one time, and were not two things, but both one office 
in the beginning of Christ's religion." His chaplain, 
Richard Cox, afterwards leader of the anti-Puritan party 
in "the Troubles at Frankfort," and finally an Elizabethan 
bishop, answers, "Although by Scripture (as St. Hierome 
saith) priests and bishops be one, and therefore the one 
not before the other, yet bishops, as they be now, were 
after priests, and therefore made of [i. e., by] priests." 
Dr. John Redman, a graduate of Paris, and professor of 
theology at Cambridge, thinks that "they be of like be- 
ginning, and at the beginning were both one, as St. 
Hierome and other old authors show by Scripture; where- 
fore one made another indifferently." 

On the other side of the great controversy of the time 
was Dr. Roger Edgeworth, fellow of Oriel, and a writer 
on Church discipline. He "thinks it no inconvenience 
that the priests in the primitive Church made bishops. 
Even like as soldiers should choose one among themselves 
to be their captain, so did priests choose one of themselves 



The Episcopate oj the Middle Ages 205 

to be their bishop, for consideration of his learning, gravity 
and good living." He also had been reading Jerome. 
Edmund Bonner, at that time Bishop of Hereford, and 
afterwards of London, says: "I think that bishops were 
first; and yet I think it not of importance whether the 
priest then made the bishop, or else the bishop the priest, 
considering (after the sentence of St. Jerome) that in the 
beginning of the Church there was no (or if it were, very 
small) difference between a bishop and a priest, especially 
touching the signification. 1 

In the Elizabethan church, down to 1589, this was the 
belief of all parties. Bishop Jewell, who stands preemi- 
nent for his patristic learning, tells Dr. Harding: " Saint 
Hierome's words be plain enough : ' A priest and a bishop 
is all one thing'; and before that by the working of the 
Devil parts were taken in religion, and some said, ' I 
hold of Paul ' ; some, ' I hold of Apollos ' ; and some other, 
1 1 hold of Peter ' ; the churches were governed by the com- 
mon council of the priests." " Saint Hierome saith, 'Let 
bishops understand that they are above priests rather of 
custom than of any truth or right of Christ's institution." 2 

Besides Cranmer, Cox, Redman and Jewell, we find 
among the disciples of Jerome in this matter Thomas 
Becon, Dr. John Rainolds, Richard Hooker, Dr. Richard 
Field, Francis Mason, Bishop John Cosin and Bishop 
Edward Stillingfleet, each of them an ornament in point 
of learning to the Church of England. 

I have dwelt on this point at some length, because of the 
effort made by some Anglicans to have Jerome's judgment 
regarded as the eccentric opinion of a solitary doctor, and 

1 John Strype's Memorials of Cranmer, Appendices XXVII and XXVIII. 
Archbishop Cranmer's Miscellaneous Writings and Letters (Parker Society), 
pp. 115-117. Church and State under the Tudor s, by Gilbert W. Child (London, 
1890), pp. 293-4. Dr. John J. McElhinney's The Doctrine of the Church: A 
Historical Monograph (Philadelphia, 1871), pp. 167-169. 

3 The Work* of John Jewell (Parker Society). Third portion, pp. 272 and 294. 



206 The Historic Episcopate 

as destitute alike of authority and of influence on the sub- 
sequent teaching of the Church. It has been, on the con- 
trary, the prevailing judgment of western Christendom 
from that great scholar's time, down almost to the close 
of the great century which embraces the years of the 
Reformation. Even after the separation of the Teutonic 
churches from the Roman obedience, it remained the 
judgment both of those who disowned the pope and of 
those who remained loyal to him, until the exigencies of 
controversy suggested to Michael de Medina and to 
Richard Bancroft, at about the same time, to stigmatize 
as heresy what had been for eleven centuries an unbroken 
tradition of the Christian west. 

Dr. Charles Wordsworth, the " Bishop of St. Andrews," 
speaks of the statement that bishops are not a different 
and superior order to presbyters as a part of the papal 
conspiracy to make all bishops dependent upon the pope 
for their rights. He also quotes the nonjuror, Charles 
Leslie, to that effect. 1 Will he assert that Jerome, and 
the long line of patristic and scholastic theologians who 
were of his mind in the matter, were engaged in that 
conspiracy? And how was it that the view of Jerome was 
put out of court by papalists like Bellarmin, so that it 
ceased to be heard of when the papal power attained the 
greatest influence over the Latin church? 

1 A Discourse on the Scottish Reformation (Edinburgh, 1861), pp, 137-140. 



CHAPTER VIII 

Tudor Anglicanism 

The Reformation of the sixteenth century rent the 
national churches of Teutonic Europe from "the Roman 
obedience," as the Latin churches in the eleventh century 
had been rent from communion with the Greek. The 
time had come for the Teutonic peoples to cast off the 
leading-strings of an authority which had been helpful 
to them at an earlier time, but which had become a hin- 
drance to their growth in Christian life and order. They 
were now to work out their solution of the great problem 
of constituting Christ's kingdom among men, according 
to the character of their thought. 

Throughout the countries affected by the Reformation, 
diocesan episcopacy existed in its least historic form. It 
was the region of Christendom most remote from the 
cradle of Christianity. Its Church system was the farthest 
removed from that urban and pastoral episcopate which 
had flourished in the early patristic period. It had origi- 
nated at a time when that was disappearing from Greece 
and Italy, to make room for a diocesan episcopacy fash- 
ioned after the imperial and military methods of Rome. 
It had been conformed from the first to the model either 
of Roman provincialism or of Teutonic kingship. It was 
a prelacy rather than an episcopacy, and therefore alien to 
the spirit and maxims of the New Testament. 

Long before the Reformation this diocesan prelacy had 

come to be regarded as among the abuses of the Church. 

207 



208 The Historic Episcopate 

Not only among the small reforming parties of the Middle 
Ages, but even by many of the most loyal sons of the 
Church, the insolence of "the proud prelates" had been 
an object of censure. That any real reformation must 
affect this system of ecclesiastical rule was the common 
belief of all who accepted the Reformation. As a conse- 
quence the members of the prelatic hierarchy on the 
Continent, with very few exceptions, adhered to the Bishop 
of Rome; and when any one of them did come to the help 
of the Reformers, there was little disposition to accept 
his office along with his person. 

In Germany George Polentz, Bishop of Samland, in 

1523, and Erhard von Queis, Bishop of Pomesania, in 

1524, became Lutherans; and their North German sees 
were filled by Lutherans who bore the episcopal title 
until 1587. In 1524 Matthias of Jagow, Bishop of 
Brandenburg, accepted Protestantism. In 1536-1542 
Hermann von Wied, Archbishop of Cologne (Koeln), 
strove to introduce the Lutheran reformation into his 
diocese, but was stopped by the Emperor Charles V, and 
deposed. In 1548 Pietro Paolo Vergerio, Bishop of Istria, 
embraced Lutheranism and removed first to Switzerland 
and then to Tubingen, where he died in 1565, a Lutheran 
pastor. Throughout Protestant Germany the authority 
of the local prince as summus episcopus replaced that of 
the bishops in the Lutheran churches. 1 

In Scandinavia the course of events was different. All 
the Danish bishops adhered to the Church of Rome, and 
were extruded by King Christian III in 1534. Superin- 
tendents were appointed to their sees, and to these the 
title of bishop was afterwards given. In Sweden the 

1 Dan. Heinr. Arnoldt's Kurtzgefasste Kirchengeschichte des Konigreichs 
Preussen (Konigsberg, 1769), pp. 253-254; 258-259. Geschichte der Reforma- 
tion, von H. E. F. Guericke (Berlin, 1855), pp. 180, 193-194, 218-219, 221 
(n. 4), 222. 



Tudor Anglicanism 209 

Roman Catholic Bishop of Westeraas in 1531 consecrated 
the reformer Lars Peterson Archbishop of Upsala. In 
Norway the Roman Catholic bishops were expelled by 
Christian III in 1531, but the Bishop of Oslo accepted the 
Reformation and was made Bishop of Oslo and Hammer, 
while the other sees were filled by Lutherans. In Iceland 
Ogmundr Palsson, Bishop of Skalholt, in 1539 consecrated 
as his successor Gizur Einarsson, who inclined to Luther- 
anism, and who afterw r ards accepted the Lutheran Re- 
formation. But none of these countries took such steps 
for the maintenance of an unbroken succession as indicated 
their belief in any divine authority for episcopacy, or 
would satisfy Greek or Roman canonists, or Anglican 
theorists. Lutheran ministers ordained by the Augustana 
(Swedish) Synod of America, on returning to Sweden, are 
admitted to pastoral positions in the national church on 
the same footing as those who have been ordained by 
Swedish bishops. 1 

No bishop cast in his lot with the Reformed churches 
of the European continent. In France Guillaume Bricon- 
net, Bishop of Meaux, and Gerard Roussel, Bishop of 
Oleron, showed marked sympathies with the Reformation, 
but both clung to the Roman obedience. In Scotland 
Adam Bothwell, Bishop of the Orkneys, and Alexander 
Gordon, Bishop of Galloway, accepted the Reformation, 
and served as " superintendents " in the plan for " planting 
and reforming kirks," which the first General Assembly 
adopted. It is disputed whether or not this office of 
superintendent was meant to be permanent. The lan- 
guage of the first Book of Discipline (1560) seems to indi- 
cate that it was not. It says: 

We consider that if the ministers whom God hath endowed 
with his singular graces amongst us, should be appointed to 

1 Guericke, pp. 224-227. Bishop L. A. Anjou's History of the Reformation 
in Sweden (New York, 1859), pp. 243-244; 277-281; C38-641. 

14 



210 The Historic Episcopate 

severall places there to make their continual! residence, that 
then the greatest part of the realme should be destitute of all 
doctrine. . . . And therefore we have thought it a thing 
most expedient at this time, that from the whole number of 
godly and learned men, now presently in this realme, be selected 
ten or twelve (for in so many provinces we have divided the 
whole), to whom charge and commandment should be given to 
plant kirkes, to set, order and appoint ministers as the former 
order prescribes, to the countries that shall be appointed to their 
care where none are now. . . . Nothing we desire more 
earnestly, than that Christ Jesus be universally once preached 
throughout this realme, which shall not suddenlie be, unlesse 
that by you men be appointed and compelled, faithfully to 
travel in such provinces as to them shall be assigned. 

Yet Dr. Herbert Story is right in saying that, " there 
is no reason to believe that those who instituted the office 
contemplated its early abolition"; for the first Book of 
Discipline itself says: "In this present necessity, the 
nomination, examination and admission of the superin- 
tendent cannot be so straight as we require, and as after- 
wards it must be." 1 

It was from England, first in 1610, and again in 1661, 
that the Stuart kings obtained "the apostolical succes- 
sion" for the kirk. Two of their first series of bishops, 
Alexander Lindsay of Dunkeld and John Abernethy of 
Caithness, signed the National Covenant in 1638, and 
were continued in the exercise of their ministry as pastors 
of parishes; while two others, Bishops Fairlee of Argyle 
and Graham of the Orkneys, submitted to the new order 
of things. The church of Scotland offers no plea of 
"necessity" for her want of diocesan bishops. Twice she 
had the opportunity of retaining that sort of episcopacy 



1 The Apostolic Ministry in the Scottish Church, by Robert Herbert Story 
(Edinburgh and London, 1897). 

Yet John a Lasco, who was the first to introduce the office of superintendent 
into the Reformed Church, treated it as not only permanent in character, but 
of divine authority. He says: " Superintendentis seu inspectoris ministerium — 
Graeci Episkopen vocant— ^-esse divinam ordinationem in Christi ecclesia, per 
ipsummet Christum Dominum inter ipsos etiam Apostolos institutam, dum 
Petro confirmandi reliquos fratres in fide provinciam pecuhariter demandaret.". 



Tudor A u silica nism 211 

on such terms as she might think best, and twice she cast 
it out. 1 

In the era of the Reformation there was no general 
belief in the divine right of the monarchic episcopate in 
any part of Europe, or among any class of theologians on 
either side of the great line of demarcation. When 
Luther said, "The bishop is not superior to the presbyter 
by divine right"; and "Only according to human order 
is one above another in the outward Church"; he was but 
repeating what he had learned from accepted text-books 
of the canon law, which followed the teaching of Jerome. 
Down to the close of the sixteenth century both the friends 
and the enemies of the Reformation were in agreement on 
that point, as they were when questioned by Henry 
VIII in 1540. 

Almost at the same time the representatives of the 
counter-Reformation on the Continent, and the High 
Anglicans in England, began the change of front. The 
spokesman of the latter was Dr. Richard Bancroft, then 
a canon of Westminster, and afterwards Archbishop of 
Canterbury, who preached his famous "Sermon at Paule's 
Crosse the 9 day of Februarie, being the first Sunday in 
the Parliament, Anno 1588," in which he asserted a divine 
right for episcopacy. This was followed, five years later, 
by Dr. Thomas Bilson's book, The Perpetual Government of 
Christes Church, which undertook to show that the 
principle of "superiority" of one above others had been 
the uniform rule in God's administration of his Church, 
from the days of Moses to those of modern "primates and 
metropolitans." 

This shift of position is generally admitted, but Dr. 
Walter Farquhar Hook, in a note to his sermon on Hear 

1 The Episcopal Church of Scotland from the Reformation to the Revolution, by 
John Parker Lawson (Edinburgh, 1844), pp. 54-64; 66-71; 615-616. 



212 The Historic Episcopate 

the Church (London, 1848), alleged an utterance of Arch- 
bishop Cranmer's in 1548, as putting that great and good 
man on Anglican ground. This is found in a " Catechism 
set forth by the most Reverend Father in God, Thomas, 
Archbishop of Canterbury, Primate of all England and 
Metropolitan." The preface says that it was " overseen 
and corrected" by Cranmer, but it is nowhere said that 
he was the author. It is in fact a translation from the 
Latin of Justus Jonas (1539), and this, in turn, is a trans- 
lation of the German sermons on Luther's Short Cate- 
chism, which were appended to the Kirchenordnung of 
Nuremberg (1523). ' The passage Dean Hook quotes 
reads: 

The ministration of God's word, which our Lord Jesus Christ 
himself did first institute, was derived from the Apostles unto 
others after them, by the imposition of hands and giving the 
Holy Ghost, from the Apostles' time to our days, and this was 
the consecration, orders and unction of the Apostles, whereby 
they, at the beginning made bishops and priests; and this shall 
continue in the Church unto the world's end. 

The Latin of Justus Jonas reads: 

Atque sic ministerium verbi (quod Dominus noster Jesus 
Christus ipse instituit) transmissum est ad posteros, per im- 
positionem manuum, et communicationem Spiritus Sancti, 
usque in hanc horam. Et haec vera est Apostolica consecratio, 
ordinatio, et unctio, qua consecrandi sunt Sacerdotes inde ab 
initio, quae et in Ecclesia manebit usque ad finem mundi. 
Quicquid praeterea additum est ceremoniarum, sine necessitate 
inventum et additum est ab hominibus. 

1 Catechismus, das ist Kinder-Predig. Wie die in der gnedigen Herren Marg- 
graffen zu Brandenburg und eins Erbarn Raths der Stat Nurnberg Oberkeit und 
Gebieten, allenthalben gepredigt tcerden. Den Kindern und Jungen leuten zu 
sonderm nutz also in schrifft verfast. Nurnberg, 1523. 

Catechismus pro pueris et iuventute in Ecclesiis et ditione Illustriss. March- 
ionum Brandeborgensium et inclyti Senatus Norimbergensis, breviter conscriptus, 
e germanico latine redditm, per Justum Jonam, addita epistola de laude Decalogia>. 
Viteberg, 1539 and 1543. Octavo. 

Catechismus; That is to say a shorte Introduction into Christian Religion for 
the synguler commoditie and profyte of childre end yong people. Set forth by the 
moste reverende father in God Thomas Archbyshop of Canterbury, Primate of all 
England and Metropolitane. Gualterus Lynne excudebat, 1548. 

From the resemblance of the first and third titles. I infer that the English 
translator had the German before him, as well as the Latin. 



Tudor Anglicanism 213 

Both the Lutheran doctor and the Anglican archbishop 
(or his translator) were keeping the middle way between 
the two extremes of their time. The Anabaptists, on the 
one hand, demanded a direct ordination by the Holy 
Spirit, without regard to Church order; the Romanists, 
on the other, demanded much more in the way of ceremony 
than the apostolic records would warrant. The rendering 
of " sacer dotes" by "bishops and priests" is simply an 
adaptation of the words of a popular manual to the state 
of things which " children and young people" would see 
in their own country. It is no evidence that Cranmer 
had changed his mind since his answer to King Henry in 
1540, or since his "Declaration" of 1536, in which he says: 

The truth is that in the New Testament there is no mention of 
any degrees or distinctions in orders; but only of deacons and 
ministers, and of priests or bishops. 

All these utterances of the martyr archbishop belong to 
the reign of Henry VIII, when he was under the influence 
of the Lutheran reformers. After the accession of King 
Edward he came into closer relations with Calvin and the 
reformers of his school, accepted the Calvinistic doctrines 
of the sacraments, and embodied these in the second Ed- 
wardine Book of Common Prayer. In 1550, between the 
first and the second book, appeared The Form and Manner 
of Making and Consecrating Archbishops, Bishops, Priests 
and Deacons, commonly known as The English Ordinal. 
From his friend and contemporary, Bishop John Bale, 
we learn that the preface to the Ordinal was Cranmer's 
work. It has the marks of that stately and impressive 
style which we find in his acknowledged writings, and to 
which the Book of Common Prayer owes so much of its 
literary charm. It opens with the famous sentence: 

It is evident unto all men, diligently reading Holy Scripture, 
that from the Apostles' time there hath been these three orders 



214 The Historic Episcopate 

of ministers in Christ's Church: Bishops, Priests and Deacons; 
which offices were evermore held in such reverent estimation 
that no man by his own private authority might presume to 
execute any of them, except he were first called, tried, examined 
and known to have such qualities as were requisite for the same; 
and also, by public prayer, with imposition of hands, admitted 
thereto. 



Much ingenuity has been employed in reading into this 
statement what is neither said nor meant by it. As it is 
the only declaration on the subject to be found in the 
formularies of the Church of England, the High Anglicans 
have naturally made the most of it, and even more than 
the most. 

(1) They interpret it to mean that no other form or 
kind of Church government than that by bishops, priests 
and deacons has been known to the Church since the days 
of the Apostles. It certainly does not contradict Dr. 
Lightfoot's view that in the first half of the second century 
the churches of Rome, Corinth and Philippi were still 
under presbyterial government, although — in his view — 
episcopal government already existed in Asia through 
the action of the Apostle John. 

(2) They interpret it to mean that the Church of Eng- 
land holds that episcopacy is necessary to the existence of 
a Christian church. But, as Dean Lefroy 1 points out, 
the Ordinal of 1550 elsewhere speaks of the necessity of 
priests and deacons in the Church, and directs that the 
people shall be instructed on this point; but neither it 
nor the revised Ordinal of 1662 says anything of the kind 
about bishops, although on this point light was more 
needed than on the other. 

(3) They interpret it to mean that the Church of Eng- 
land does not regard the presbyterially governed churches 
of Scotland and the Continent as portions of the Catholic 

1 The Christian Ministry, pp. 332-334, n. 



Tudor Anglicanism 215 

Church, but as mere schisms from that body. It was not 
so understood by any representative of the Church of 
England down to the Restoration, with the possible 
exceptions of Archbishops Laud and Neale and Jeremy 
Taylor. Even the champions of episcopacy in that time — 
Hooker, Andrews, Hall, Cosin, Bramhall, etc. — anxiously 
repudiate the charge of sitting in judgment on the Re- 
formed churches beyond the sea. In the Book of Consti- 
tutions and Canons Ecclesiastical, drawn up in 1604, we 
shall see that the Church of Scotland is mentioned ex- 
pressly as a branch of the Church Catholic, although 
down to 1610 the Kirk had none but presbyterial govern- 
ment and ordination. 

(4) They interpret it to mean that the authority of the 
Christian ministry comes through the succession of bishops 
from the time of the Apostles, maintained by the imposi- 
tion of hands on each by other bishops at his consecration, 
along with the words, "Receive the Holy Ghost"; and 
that sacerdotal power is conveyed to presbyters by the 
use of those words, with the imposition of a bishop's 
hands, and with the declaration, " Whose sins thou dost 
forgive they are forgiven; and whose sins thou dost 
retain they are retained." Here indeed falls the greatest 
stress of their theory. "It is a matter of very great im- 
portance," says Dr. Charles Gore, "to exalt the principle 
of the apostolic succession above the question of the exact 
form of the ministry in which the principle has expressed 
itself, even though it be by apostolic ordering." But 
Dean Lefroy very aptly replies that this is just the oppo- 
site of what the Church of England has done in the 
Ordinal. "The Church has emphasized the apostolicity 
of the ministry, . . . but is silent about the succes- 
sion. She emphasizes that which is of less importance. 
She ignores that which is accounted greater." Nor has 



216 The Historic Episcopate 

there been any such continuity and uniformity in the use 
of forms as the succession theory assumes. The liturgical 
researches of the great Oratorian, Jean Morin (De Sacris 
Ordinationibus, 1655), show that there has been no con- 
tinuous use of the language, " Whose sins," etc. None of 
the Greek ordinals use them; and out of thirty-seven 
Latin ordinals, only two, and those the latest, employ 
them. 1 Even as to the imposition of hands, the silence 
of the Apostolical Constitutions and Canons, and other 
early documents, leaves it very doubtful whether this was 
generally used; and we have seen one liturgical writer of 
the early Middle Ages declare that there was no authority 
for the usage, and especially none in Roman tradition. 
"In the New Testament," writes Dr. Cranmer, 2 the author 
of the declaration we are discussing, "he that is appointed 
to be a bishop or a priest, needeth no consecration by the 
Scripture, for election or appointing thereto is sufficient." 
Archbishop Cranmer lived in communion and corre- 
spondence with the Protestant Churches of the Conti- 
nent — first the Lutheran and then the Reformed — from 
before his accession to the primacy to the time of his 
martyrdom. He invited Martin Butzer, Paul Fagius, 
Immanuel Tremellius, and other Reformed scholars to aid 
in the work of the English Reformation. He wanted to 
make John Knox an English bishop, and, failing in that, he 
accepted him as one of the chaplains of King Edward VI. 
He and his associates in the preparation of the first 
Edwardine Book of Common Prayer (1549) made free use 
of the Lutheran liturgies, especially that prepared for 
Nuremberg by his kinsman by marriage, Andreas Osiander 
(1533), and that proposed by Archbishop Hermann von 
Wied for Cologne (Koeln) in 1543, and translated into 

1 The Christian Ministry, by Dean Lefroy, pp. 391-396. 

2 Miscellaneous Writings and Letters (Parker Society), p. 117. 



Tudor . 1 nglicanism 2 1 7 

English in 1547. From the Genevan liturgy of John 
Calvin (1538-1541), and the suggestions of Martin Butzer, 
oame most of the variations found in the second Edwardine 
Book (1552). The first book is substantially Lutheran; 
the second substantially Calvinist, in accordance with 
the archbishop's own change of theological position be- 
tween 1549 and 1552, under the influence of "my lord of 
London, Doctor Ridley," as he said in his examination at 
Oxford in 1555. 1 

The period of the Marian persecution and exile (1553- 
1558) developed sharp antagonism between Anglicans and 
Puritans in the matter of liturgic usages, but not as to the 
government of the Church. Even the Anglican party 
among the exiles in the English church at Frankfort, after 
driving out Knox, Knollys and Whittingham by enforcing 
the English liturgy, organized their church after the model 
of Geneva, with pastor, elders and deacons, and wrote to 
Calvin to justify their proceedings. 2 The friends of the 
Genevan discipline wished to see the Church attain a 
greater measure of independent action through the crea- 
tion of national and local synods, and the vigorous exer- 
cise of discipline upon public offenders. But Elizabeth 
would have neither. She resolved to maintain the old 
hierarchy, without any other restriction upon its powers 
than its complete subjection to her royal will. She would 
not even tolerate the meetings of the clergy for mutual 
instruction and edification, called " Prophesy nigs," and 
she suspended Archbishop Grindal from the exercise of 
his office because he refused to suppress them at her bid- 
ding. It was part of her political programme to keep up 

1 The Lutheran Movement in England, by Dr. H. E. Jacobs (Philadelphia, 
1890). 

s A Brief Discours off The Troubles Begonne at Frankfort in Germany, Anno 
Domini 1554, about the Booke off Common Prayer and Ceremonies [by William 
Whittingham] . (London (1575), 1846, pp. cxvii-cxviii.) 



218 The Historic Episcopate 

a system of ecclesiastical pomp, by way of showing the 
Catholic sovereigns of the Continent how little she had 
departed from the mediaeval tradition. Archbishops 
Parker and Whitgift, who moved about their province 
with a grand escort of knights and men-at-arms, were 
bishops after her heart. 

It was not easy for the queen to establish the English 
hierarchy on its new basis of Erastian subjection to the 
sovereign, and power to dictate to everybody else. Not one 
of the bishops in actual charge of English and Welsh 
sees at her accession would assist her in this. Anthony 
Kitchin, Bishop of Llandaff, was the only one who would 
recognize her as " supreme governor as well in spiritual 
as in temporal things," the title adopted at the persuasion 
of Thomas Lever instead of her father's "supreme Head 
of the Church." But Anthony of Llandaff had held his 
diocese under her father, her brother and her sister, and 
his assent did not count for much. As to helping in 
consecrating a new archbishop to fill the place left by the 
martyrdom of Cranmer and the death of Pole, that he 
would not, and his refusal seems to have been forgiven, 
possibly on account of his age. 

Bishops Bourn of Bath and Wells, Tunstall of Durham 
and Poole of Petersborough were also asked, and refused 
to act. To Bishops Bonner, Turberville, White, Watson, 
Thirlby, Brookes, Baines, Heath, Oglethorpe, Morgan, 
and Thornton she did not apply, as she knew what their 
answer would be. Bishops Scott, Pate and Goldwell 
had fled the kingdom. So a fresh commission was issued 
to six bishops without sees to perform the consecration, 
and four of the six complied. These were: 

(1) William Barlow, successively Bishop of St. Asaph 
(1535-1536), St. David's (1536-1542), and Bath and Wells 
(1548-1553). He had resigned the last at the accession 



Tudor Anglicanism 219 

of Quoon Mary, and recanted, but escaped to the Conti- 
nent. Not only is there no record of his having been 
consecrated bishop in 1535, but the chronology of his 
movements in the diplomatic service of King Henry 
leaves no room for the transaction. Nor did he feel the 
need of it, for he had declared in a sermon that "If the 
King's Grace, being supreme Head of the Church of 
England, did choose, denominate and elect any layman 
(being learned) to be a bishop, that he so chosen should be 
as good a bishop as he, or the best in England." 1 

(2) John Scory also had been removed from the see of 
Chichester at the accession of Mary; and he also had 
recanted, but had escaped to the Continent, and made 
his way to Geneva. He preached at the consecration, 
on the text 1 Peter v: i: "The elders among you I ex- 
hort, who am also an elder." I do not remember hear- 
ing of that text being used on any other such occasion. 

(3) Miles Coverdale, made Bishop of Exeter by King 
Edward, had been removed by Queen Mary, but allowed 
to retire to the Continent. His Puritan sympathies were 
shown by his refusal to wear the episcopal vestments even 
at the consecration, and by his never performing another 
episcopal act. 

(4) John Hodgkyn had been made Suffragan-Bishop of 
Bedford in 1537, to relieve Bishop Stokesley of some of 
the burdensome duties of the see of London. After that 
bishop's death, in 1537, he seems to have fallen back into 
the ranks of the parish priests, from which he was re- 

1 Bishop Barlow's movements in 1535 are traced in an article in The Methodist 
Review by Rev. Richard J. Cook. High Anglicans take comfort from his 
Dialogue on the Lutheran Factions (1531, 1553, 1897) as indicating antagonism 
to the continental reformers, and thus going to show sound Anglo-Catholic 
sympathies, and a probability that he was correctly consecrated. It proves 
nothing of the sort. In the situation of affairs in 1531 scandal at the expense 
of Luther and the Lutherans was a marketable article in England, and Barlow 
was not the man to miss his chance. Bishop Stokesley of London ordered his 
clergy to procure copies. Equally well timed was its reprint in the year when 
Mary came to the throne, 



220 The Historic Episcopate 

called for this service. He took off the episcopal vest- 
ments before the consecration was completed, and never 
acted as bishop again. 

It is for canonical casuists to decide whether these 
three Puritans and one Erastian really acted with the 
"intention" to consecrate Matthew Parker a bishop in 
the sense recognized by Roman Catholics and Anglicans. 
The former also object that neither in the prayer preceding 
imposition of hands, nor in the words spoken with that 
act to the person to be consecrated, does the old Ordinal 
mention any office to which he is set apart, so that all 
that was said might have been spoken with equal propriety 
at the ordination of a presbyter. At the revision of the 
Ordinal in 1662 this was corrected by changing the address 
to read "Receive the Holy Ghost for the Office and Work 
of a Bishop in the Church of God." But in the meantime 
more than two hundred bishops had been consecrated by 
a form which left it undefined whether they were to be 
bishops or not. 

I shall not here dispute the contention that there is no 
break in the history of the English church, in the transi- 
tion from being the church in England to being the Church 
of England, which was effected under the Tudors. But 
no such continuity as Mr. Freeman and his school claimed 
for that church can be based upon the succession of its 
bishops. The hierarchy Elizabeth found at her accession 
was swept out of office literally to the last man, that 
feeble old "Vicar of Bray," Anthony of Llandaff, who 
constitutes the one common member of the episcopate 
of 1558 and that of 1561. Nine sees, it is true, were 
vacant by death when the bishops were required to assent 
to the new system or to be "deprived." But seventeen 
were still occupied by canonical bishops, sixteen of whom 
the queen put out with the strong hand, because they 



Tudor Anglicanism 221 

would not take the oath of obedience to her as "the 
onl} r supreme governor of this realm, as well in spiritual 
or ecclesiastical things or causes, as temporal/' and 
renounce the jurisdiction of the pope. To exhibit the 
gravity of the change I shall give a list of Marian and 
Elizabethan bishops of those seventeen sees: 

Marian Sees Elizabethan 

Cuthbert Scott Chester William Downham 

Richard Pate Worcester Edwin Sandys 

Ralph Baynes Lichfield and Coventry . Thomas Bentham 

Edmund Bonner .... London Edmund Grindal 

James Turberville . . . Exeter William Alley 

John White Winchester Robert Home 

Gilbert Bourne Bath and Wells Gilbert Berkley 

Thomas Watson .... Lincoln Nicholas Bullingham 

Thomas Thirlby .... Ely Richard Cox 

James Brookes Gloucester Richard Cheney 

David Pole Peterborough Edmund Scambler 

Nicholas Heath York Thomas Young (1561) 

Cuthbert Tunstall . .Durham James Pilkington 

Owen Oglethorpe . . . Carlisle John Best 

Thomas Goldwell . . .St. Asaph's Richard Davies 

Henry Morgan St. David's Thomas Young (1560) 

Anthony Kitchin . . .Llandaff Anthony Kitchm 

Five of the " deprived" had been bishops under Henry 
VIII, and had acknowledged him as " supreme Head of 
the Church of England," viz., Bishops Pate, Bonner, 
Thirlby, Heath and Tunstall. Seven others of the 
sixteen had held Church preferment in his reign, and must 
have made the same acknowledgment. But apart from 
his quarrel with the pope about the divorce, Henry stood 
on Roman Catholic ground, being no heretic, but a schis- 
matic Roman Catholic, while Elizabeth was driven by her 
position as the daughter of Anne Boleyn to make common 
cause with the Reformers. The Convocation of the 
Church of England, meeting in 1559, drew up five articles 
declaring for the Romanist position, and including the 
supremacy of the pope; but Elizabeth ignored Convoca- 



222 The Historic Episcopate 

tion, and proceeded through her Parliament to reduce 
the Church to her obedience, and through a committee 
of divines to revise the worship of its congregations. 
Everything was done in defiance of the episcopal bench, 
and without any canonical process against those who were 
swept from it by her sole authority, to make room for 
the queen's nominees. 1 It was not until 1597, when 
Archbishop Parker and the other prelates of this creation 
were all dead, that the deprivation of the Marian bishops 
was declared legal by act of Parliament, and the legality 
of the Protestant succession affirmed. 

Partly through policy, to conciliate Continental rulers 
by showing them how little she had altered the outward 
form of the Church, and partly through her personal 
tastes for formality and splendor, Elizabeth stopped the 
changes in the order and worship of the Church far short of 
what the Protestant part of her people and clergy desired. 
The statesmen of her reign generally wished for a more 
thorough reformation, in both government and ritual. 
Sir Francis Knollys, her kinsman and Treasurer of the 
Household; Lord Burghley (Sir William Cecil) and Sir 
Francis Walsingham, her two great Secretaries of State; 
Sir Walter Mildmay, her Chancellor of the Exchequer; 
the Earl of Huntington, her President of the North; 
Lord Grey of Wilton and the Earl of Essex, both Lords 
Lieutenant of Ireland; the Earl of Leicester, her prime 
favorite; his worthy brother, the Earl of Warwick; 
his still more worthy nephew, Sir Philip Sidney; and 
Sidney's great friend Edmund Spenser, were all on the side 
which came to be nicknamed Puritan. The poet upholds 
as an ideal churchman Bishop Grindal, who endured 
virtual deposition rather than do her bidding, and who 
spoke his mind to her with the freedom of Ambrose to 

1 Church and State under the Tudor 8, by Gilbert W. Child, pp. 180-190. 



Tudor A nglica n ism 223 

Theodosius, or of Andrew Melville to King James. For 
even her bishops of the earlier creation were no zealots 
for her system. Jewel of Salisbury, the most able and 
learned of them, especially in the field of patristic scholar- 
ship, accepted and retained the office with great reluc- 
tance, and expressed his admiration for the thoroughness 
of the Scottish reformation, and for the Church of Geneva, 
where he had seen "four thousand people and more re- 
ceiving the holy mj r steries together at one communion. " 
During the first thirty years of her reign nothing was 
heard of those claims to a more apostolic ministry than 
was possessed by the Reformed churches of the Continent 
and of Scotland. Nor did the laws favor such claims. 
The statute 13 Elizabeth, Cap. XII ("An Act for the Min- 
isters of the Church to be of sound Religion"), enacts 
that: 

Every person under the degree of a bishop, which doth or shall 
pretend to be a priest or minister of God's holy word and 
sacrament, by reason of any other form of institution, consecra- 
tion or ordering, than the form set forth by Parliament in the 
time of King Edward the Sixth, or now used, . . . shall 
in the presence of the bishop or guardian of the spiritualities 
of some one diocese where he hath or shall have ecclesiastical 
living, declare his assent and subscribe to all the Articles of 
Religion, . . . and shall bring from such bishop or guar- 
dian a testimonial of such assent or subscription, and openly 
on some Sunday in the time of public service afore noon, in 
every church where by reason of any ecclesiastical living he 
ought to attend, read both the said testimonial and the said 
Articles, upon pain that every such person .... shall 
be ipso facto deprived. 1 

This covers the case both of Roman Catholic clerics 
conforming to the Church of England, and (as Bishop 
Cosin points out) that of ministers of the other Reformed 
churches entering the service of the Church of England. 
In neither case is a reordination required or even author- 

* Church and State under the Tudors, by Gilbert W. Child, p. 407. 



224 The Historic Episcopate 

ized. All that is exacted is a subscription to the Thirty- 
nine Articles. Nor was the law a dead letter. Besides 
many which have escaped notice, because there was noth- 
ing extraordinary to call attention to them, there are on 
record several cases in this and the next reign. Two of 
these are notable: 

(a) Archbishop Grindal in 1582 issued a license to 
preach and to administer the sacraments to a Scotchman 
named John Morrison, stating that he had been ordained 
"by the imposition of hands, according to the laudable 
form and rite of the Church of Scotland." 

(b) Hadrian Saravia, a minister of the Dutch Church, 
removed to the Channel Islands in 1550, but returned to 
Ley den as professor of divinity in 1582. Six years later 
we find him in England, and rector of the parish of 
Tattenhall in Cheshire, and afterwards of that at Great 
Chart, where he died in 1613. He was a eulogist of epis- 
copacy, and a friend of Richard Hooker, to whom he 
administered the communion the day before his death, 
in 1600. He urged those of the ministers of the Channel 
Islands who were born subjects of the queen to accept 
episcopal ordination, but he never received it himself. 1 

Three cases are alleged as having an opposite bearing 
from those I have mentioned; but they prove the same 
thing. 

(c) Among the Marian exiles, William Whittingham 
had supported Knox in "the troubles at Frankfurt" with 
Dr. Cox and the advocates of the disputed ceremonies. 
He followed Knox to Geneva, and when the reformer 
returned to Scotland in 1558, Whittingham was called to 
the pastorate of the church of English exiles in that city. 
He had not been ordained, and believed he was fitter for 
civil than for ecclesiastical service; but Calvin overcame 

1 Church and State under the Tudor a, by G. W. Child, p. 300. 



Tudor A nglica nis m 225 

his reluctance and he accepted the office. As ordination 
"by the laying on of the hands of the presbytery" was 
the usage at Geneva, it may be assumed that he received 
this. After filling other responsible places in the Church 
of England, he was made Dean of Durham in 1563. Dr. 
Edmund Sandys, Archbishop of York, who quarreled with 
everybody, had a dispute with Dean Whittingham as to 
his right of visitation of Durham Cathedral. In 1577 he 
procured the appointment of a commission of three — 
himself, the Earl of Huntington and Dean Hutton of York 
— to report upon charges brought against the Dean of Dur- 
ham. The others voted to report in Dr. Whittingham's 
favor. Next year he got the commission reconstituted by 
adding twelve members, and before this it was alleged 
that the dean had not been ordained properly even 
according to the use of Geneva, so Dr. Sandys proposed 
to deprive him. The Earl of Huntington, who was Presi- 
dent of the North, protested against this as an insult to 
the Reformed churches abroad, and laid the matter before 
the queen, who seems to have ordered a stay of proceed- 
ings. Archbishop Whitgift is authority for the state- 
ment — often repeated — that it was only the dean's death 
on June 10, 1579, which prevented his removal. But as 
the Archbishop of York had proposed this some half-year 
before, and as nothing was doing with his report, this is 
more than improbable. In fact Dr. Whitgift w T as busy 
at the time with troubles on the Welsh frontier, and knew 
nothing at first hand about what was happening at 
Durham. 

From Strype we learn that Dr. Whittingham produced 
a certificate, signed at Geneva by eight persons, stating 
that he had been chosen to "the office of preaching the 
word of God and ministering the sacraments" "by the 
suffrages of the whole congregation," and "was admitted 
J 5 



226 The Historic Episcopate 

minister, and so published, with such other ceremonies 
as are used and accustomed." It was objected by Dr. 
Sandys and his party that " there was no mention of a 
bishop or superintendent, nor of any external solemnities, 
nor so much as of imposition of hands." It was answered 
by Dr. Whittingham that in the certificate " there was 
mention in general of the ceremonies of that church; and 
that he was able to prove his vocation to be the same that 
all the ministers of Geneva had." The Earl of Huntington 
then said that he could not in conscience agree to deprive 
him for that cause only; for "it would be ill taken by all the 
godly and learned both at home and abroad, that we should 
allow of the popish massing-priests in our ministry, and 
disallow of ministers made in a Reformed church." Dean 
Hutton, afterward Archbishop of York, boldly averred 
that "Dean Whittingham was ordained in a better sort 
than even the archbishop himself." 1 

(d) Thomas Cartwright, a scholar of singular learning 
and ability, and the senior fellow of St. John's College, 
Cambridge, held the Lady Margaret Professorship of 
Divinity in that university in 1569-70, although only in 
deacon's orders. He drew large audiences to his lectures, 
and in discoursing on the Apostolic Church referred to the 
difference between its plan of government and that of the 
Church of England, expressing a hope that a closer con- 
formity would be attained. As the university then stood, 
it was impossible to get at him; so new statutes were 
devised, taking the control out of the hands of the members 
of the university generally, and giving it to the Heads of 
Houses. Dr. Whitgift, the vice-chancellor, first removed 
him from his professorship, and then had him expelled 
from his fellowship, on the ground that he had violated 

1 Child's Church and State under the Tudors, pp. 228-230. Neal's History of 
the Puritans (New York, 1849), i, 185. Strype's Whitgift. 



Tudor A nglica nis m 227 

his oath in not applying for "priest's orders" when he 
became senior fellow. Dr. Cartwright proceeded to 
Holland, and was ordained by a Dutch presbytery, and 
afterwards united with other English ministers in forming 
a presbytery at Antwerp, which was still a Protestant 
city and a great resort of English merchants. These 
invited him to exercise his ministry among them, which he 
did, until his return to England on the capture of the city 
by the Spaniards in 1585, when all Protestants were ex- 
pelled from it. 

During a visit to England, in 1572-73, he engaged in 
controversy with Dr. Whitgift as to the right government 
and discipline of the Church, defending the Genevan 
positions. On his return in 1585 he took part in a secret 
movement to set up in England a voluntary association, 
partly for unity of action on the part of those who desired 
these reforms, and partly for the exercise of mutual ad- 
monition in the direction of a better discipline of social life. 
This movement was betrayed to the bishops by a weak 
brother, and Dr. Cartwright was arrested and, along with 
others, was taken before the Court of High Commission, 
and there required to take an oath to answer all questions 
the court should put to them. This the prisoners refused 
to do, as being neither authorized by English law nor by 
natural justice; and they were kept under imprisonment 
in the Fleet prison, where Dr. Cartwright remained for 
nearly two years, to the injury of his health. Lord 
Burghley at last secured his liberation, and he returned to 
his charge at Warwick, where the Earl of Leicester had 
made him the master of the hospital — a clerical position — 
in 1585. Here he labored till his death in 1603, except for 
a visit to the Channel Islands in 1595-98, whither he was 
invited by the royal governor, Lord Zouch, that he might 
assist in organizing the churches of that Norman-French 



228 The Historic Episcopate 

population. He had already taken part in this work in 
1676, when invited from Amsterdam by their churches. 
The charges brought against him before the Court of 
High Commission in 1590 declare that: 

He being a minister (at least a deacon), lawfully called, according 
to the godly laws and orders of this Church of England, hath 
forsaken, abandoned and renounced the same orders ecclesi- 
astical, as an Anti-Christian and unlawful manner of calling 
unto the ministry or deaconship. 

He, departing this realm into foreign parts, without fioonsat 
as a man discontented with the form of government here by 
law established, the more to testify his dislike and contempt 
thereof, and of the manner of his former vocation and ordina- 
tion, was contented in foreign parts, as at Antwerp, Middle- 
burgh, or elsewhere, to have a new vocation, election, or 
ordination, by imposition of hands unto the ministry, or unto 
some other order or degree ecclesiastical, and in other manner 
and form than the laws ecclesiastical of this realm do pre- 
scribe. 

By virtue or color of such his later vocation, election, or 
ordination, becoming a pretended bishop or pastor of such 
congregation as made choice of him, he established, or procured 
to be established, at Antwerp and at Middleburgh, among 
merchants and others, her Majesty's subjects, a certain con- 
sistory, seminary, presbytery, or eldership ecclesiastical, con- 
sisting of himself, being bishop or pastor (and so president) 
thereof, of a doctor, of certain ancients, seniors, or elders, for 
government ecclesiastical, and of deacons for distributing to the 
poor. 

By the said eldership, and the authority thereof, certain 
English-born subjects were called, elected, or ordained by im- 
position of hands, to be ministers or ecclesiastical doctors 
(being not of that degree before), as Hart, Travers, Grise, or 
some of them; and some that were also ministers afore accord- 
ing to the orders of the Church of England, as Fenner, Acton, 
were so called, and likewise ordained elders; and some others 
were ordained deacons, in other manner and form than the laws 
ecclesiastical of the realm do prescribe and allow of. 

To these charges Dr. Cartwright offered no denial, nor 
did he deny his connection with the private meetings of 
ministers who desired a farther reform of the Church of 
England, while he denied that these meetings assumed any 
ecclesiastical authority, such as ordination or excommuni- 
cation. It was such a voluntary association as high 



Tudor . 1 nglicanism 229 

Anglicans now form freely, and sometimes with quite 
as much privacy, in the Church of England, and nothing 
is thought of it. But in the Elizabethan period the free- 
dom of individual action had not been won for even High 
Churchmen by " dissenters " ; and these new "prophesy- 
ing" were as much feared and detested as were those for 
which Archbishop Grindal had suffered. 

With the interruption of his arrest in 1590-92, Cart- 
wright exercised his ministry in England and in the Chan- 
nel Islands until his death; and yet his only ordination to 
the presbyterate was that he received in Holland. The 
Ordinal of 1549 conferred the right to preach on presby- 
ters, but not upon deacons unless "he be commanded by 
the bishop." There is no evidence that Dr. Cartwright 
ever received any such license, and his own principles, 
from which he never swerved, must have forbidden him 
to apply for it. The efforts of the English prelates to 
suppress his activity awakened a general resistance among 
the most prominent lay churchmen of the time; and even 
King James, who had called him to a professorship at St. 
Andrews when he was laboring at Antwerp, wrote to the 
queen in 1591 to protest against the treatment this eminent 
champion of the Protestant cause was receiving at the 
hands of her bishops. It was probably the fear of what 
that king might do on coming to the English throne which 
made Archbishop Whitgift yield to the pressure of Burgh- 
ley for his release. Leicester and Walsingham urged 
him in 1582 to write his Confutation of the Rhemish Trans- 
lation of the New Testament, and the latter gave him a 
hundred pounds for the purchase of the books he needed. 
But Dr. Whitgift managed to suppress it, and it did not 
appear until 1618. * 

1 Memoirs of the Life and Writings of Thomas Cartwright, D.D., by the Rev. 
B. Brook (London, 1845). Fuller's Church History of England, ii-iii. 



230 The Historic Episcopate 

(e) Walter Travers, although a doctor of divinity of 
Oxford, could obtain neither ordination nor permission to 
preach because he did not feel free to use a few of the 
ceremonies prescribed by the Book of Common Prayer. 
He also proceeded to the Continent, and — as we have 
just seen — was ordained by the English presbytery at 
Antwerp, and exercised his ministry among the English 
merchants. He returned to England in 1581, and was 
chosen by the lawyers their afternoon lecturer at the 
Temple Church in London. When the mastership of 
the Temple Church fell vacant in 1584, the benchers asked 
Dr. Whitgift, then Archbishop of Canterbury, to give 
Travers the place. This the primate refused to do, unless 
he would subscribe the three new articles against non- 
conformity, and submit to reordination by a bishop. As 
Dr. Travers refused both, the place was given to Richard 
Hooker. He refused reordination on the ground that he 
would thus cast doubt on the validity of the marriages 
and baptisms he had performed, and would impugn the suf- 
ficiency of the orders of "the other churches of the gospel. ,, 
And he appealed to the provisions of the Statute 2 Eliza- 
beth 13, which required of those who had been ordained 
in the Reformed churches of the Continent no more than 
a subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles, adding "which 
also was so found in Mr. Whittingham's case, who, not- 
withstanding such replies against him, enjoyed still the 
benefit he had by his ministry, and might have done so to 
this day, if God had spared his life so long." Yet he w T ent 
on preaching in the Temple Church until Dr. Whitgift 
silenced him for answering from the pulpit what he 
thought erroneous in Hooker's morning sermons at the 
Temple, although he himself had done the same with 
Dr. Cartwright's sermons at Cambridge. Archbishop 
Adam Loftus of Dublin, in 1595, called Dr. Travers to 



Tudor Anglicanism 231 

the provostship of Trinity College in that city; and there 
he had James Ussher as his pupil and his friend. Like 
all such places in that time, this was a clerical position; 
but his Presbyterian ordination was no obstacle to the 
appointment. 1 

A fine fraternal spirit was shown in the treatment 
accorded to the churches of Protestant refugees from 
France and the Low Countries, which were settled in Lon- 
don, Sandwich, Maidstone, Colchester, Canterbury and 
Norwich. These brought with them industries which 
England lacked, including market-gardening and several 
branches of manufacture, and thus contributed to the wel- 
fare of the country. The charters given them by Eliza- 
beth placed them under the care of the bishop of the 
diocese in which they were planted, but this only to 
enable them to enforce the discipline and maintain the 
worship of their own communion, and not to bring them 
into conformity with the Church of England. Some of 
their laxer members sought to escape the severe and 
effective discipline of their church sessions by joining 
the parish churches. But even the High Anglican bishops, 
down to the period of Archbishop Laud's ascendancy, 
resisted this and constrained such recalcitrants to con- 
form to the Genevan order. 2 

Throughout Elizabeth's reign both the royal govern- 
ment and the hierarchy of the Church of England regarded 
that church as one of a sisterhood of churches, united in 
confession of the gospel and in resistance to the counter- 
Reformation represented by the Jesuit Order. They 
saw in their differences from other Reformed churches 
matters of only secondary importance, while those on 

1 Fuller's Church History of England, iii, 125-132. Child's Church and State 
under the Tudors, pp. 230-233. See also Strype's Whitgift and Brooks' Cart- 
wright. 

3 Church and State under the Tudors, by Child, pp. 202-203, 210-211. 



232 The Historic Episcopate 

which they agreed were the great things of Christ's 
kingdom. Tendencies were already at work which one 
day would destroy this harmony, would isolate the Church 
of England from the other Reformed churches as com- 
pletely as from the Latin and Greek churches, and would 
divide England into hostile ecclesiastical camps. But it 
was not until the reign of Charles I that these tendencies 
became dominant in the councils of either Church or 
state. 1 

1 The Constitutional History and Constitution of the Church of England. Trans- 
lated from the German of Felix Makower (London, 1895). Pp. 177-182: 
"The Relation of the Reformed Church of England to other Christian Churches of 
Modern Times." 



CHAPTER IX 

Stuart Anglicanism 

The accession of James VI of Scotland to the throne 
of England in 1603 proved to be the opening of a new age 
in both Church and state to both countries. At the 
opening of the six Stuart reigns the bounds of the royal pre- 
rogative were undefined; at their close the English Con- 
stitution had taken the shape of substantial democracy 
under monarchic forms. At their opening Church and 
state were almost coterminous, the whole body of the 
English people being in the Anglican communion, and, 
whatever the desire of the majority for a farther refor- 
mation, men of all shades of thought clung to the Church 
of England as a chief bulwark of the cause of the Reforma- 
tion. At their close England was rent into two antago- 
nistic bodies, the Establishment and Nonconformity, and 
has so continued down to our own time. The two trans- 
formations are closely related, but while the English 
state has come to rest and equilibrium after the devasta- 
tions of a civil war and the expulsion of the Stuart dy- 
nasty, ecclesiastical England has not emerged out of the 
antagonisms of the seventeenth century, and is only 
beginning to ask how she may do so. And the matter is 
the graver as this state of division and antagonism has 
been transplanted to America, and to all the colonies of 
the British Empire. While none of the countries of the 
Reformation have quite escaped ecclesiastical division, 

233 



234 The Historic Episcopate 

none, except possibly Holland, presents such a scene of 
disunion as do England and America. 

While many causes have contributed to this unfortunate 
result, the greatest was that the Church of England came 
under the control of statesmen and churchmen who were 
out of sympathy with the body of the people, and who 
mistook the temper of Englishmen in the matter of re- 
ligious coercion. While English liberty undoubtedly was 
advantaged by the unwisdom which pressed the royal 
prerogative to the utmost, and thus provoked a reaction 
which hardened into established rules for the restraint 
of executive power, English religion has lost far more and 
gained far less in the rending of sympathies and the per- 
petuation of strife. 

While King James, at the very outset of his reign, showed 
his decided prepossession for the High Anglican party, 
yet this was not on grounds, and with regard to questions, 
which concern us here. He, indeed, had acquired a life- 
long dislike of Presbyterianism, and labored to bring the 
Church of Scotland into conformity with that of England 
as regards episcopal government and the introduction of 
a few Anglican usages. But even in these things he used a 
great degree of caution, although he could not divest them 
of a foreign character, or make palatable to the Kirk the 
Erastian principles on which he was acting. His succes- 
sor, with Archbishop Laud as his trusted adviser, went 
farther than did his father, largely because he had no 
acquaintance with the temper of the Scottish people, and 
because Laud and his school upheld the royal prerogative 
for the control of both Church and state. The final 
outburst of 1637 was against a policy which subjected 
Scottish nationality to the dictation of English church- 
men, and against the assumption of the omnipotence of 
royal authority in the regulation of the Church, no less 



Stuart Anglicanism 235 

than against the objectionable Romanizing features of 
what the people called " Laud's liturgy." It was an asser- 
tion of the right of the realm and of its kirk to self-govern- 
ment, against Anglicanism and Erastianism allied for the 
degradation of both. 

During the first Stuart reign, and before Dr. Laud had 
acquired the place of adviser to the king, the Tudor policy 
was maintained in the recognition of the other Reformed 
churches as in communion with the Church of England, 
and of their ministry as valid despite its lack of episcopal 
ordination. 

(1) The Constitutions or Canons Ecclesiastical adopted 
by the Convocation of 1604 for the Province of Canter- 
bury, in their fifty-fifth article direct all preachers, before 
sermon, to pray "for the holy Catholic Church of Christ, 
that is, the universal congregation of Christian people, dis- 
persed and scattered throughout the world, but especially 
for the Churches of England, Scotland and Ireland." 
Yet at that time, and for six years afterwards, the Church 
of Scotland was a Presbyterian Church, for her nominal 
bishops had no authority, and no ordination beyond that 
conferred on them "by the laying on of the hands of 
the presbytery." 1 

(2) As for the Reformed churches of the Continent, the 
same friendly relations were maintained as in the reigns of 
Edward VI and Elizabeth. Nobody thought of claiming 
for the Church of England a character which would break 
the bonds of sisterhood in which she had lived for more 
than half a century, and to which she owed so much in 

1 Constitutiones sive Canones Ecclesiasticse. ... ex regia Authoritate 
tractati et conclusi in Synodo inchoata Londoni Anno Salutis 1603, Ab Regia 
Majestate approbati, rati, habiti et confirnaati, ejusdemque cum magno Sigillo 
Authoritate promulgati (London: 1604). Canon 55: Omnes Concionatores & 
Ministri in aditu suae Concionis, Lecturse & Homilise populum hortabuntur, ut 
secum in precibus concurrat in hunc et similem modum, idque (quantum licet) 
summaria brevitate: 'Precamini pro Christi sancta Ecclesia Catholica, id est, 
pro universo ccetu Christiani popub' per orbem terrarum diffusi ac disseminati, 
epecialiter vero pro Ecclesiia Angliae, Scotiae & Hibernise; etc. 



236 The Historic Episcopate 

the years of the Marian persecution. The liveliest sym- 
pathy was felt for the sufferings of Continental Protes- 
tants, and aid was sent them in the distresses which 
attended war and persecution. The Church of Holland 
was troubled with the rise of Arminianism, and invited 
her sister churches to meet her in a general synod at Dort 
in 1618, to discuss the matter. King James, as head of 
the Church of England, sent thither five dignitaries of 
that church, two of them already bishops, and two after- 
wards made such. They, along with the other delegates, 
took an oath to decide the questions at issue according to 
the word of God; and at the close, they gave their assent 
to the Belgic Confession of 1562 (which the synod adopted), 
with exceptions to its statements about the government of 
the Church, claiming that that of the Church of England 
is founded upon apostolic institution. 

It will not do to object that this was the act of King 
James, and not that of the Church of England. He had 
been acknowledged by the bishops and other clergy of 
the church as its "supreme governor in all cases ecclesias- 
tical and civil. " It was done by the same authority as 
Elizabeth had used in displacing the sixteen bishops she 
found in possession of sees in the Church in 1558, and in 
replacing them with others of her own selection by 1562. 

Nor was King James's action without precedent. In 
the last quarter of the sixteenth century the Lutherans 
of Germany were drawing sharply the line of separation 
between themselves and the Reformed Churches, es- 
pecially in the matter of the nature of the real presence in 
the sacrament, and the doctrine of predestination. The 
Formula of Concord was drawn up for this purpose, and 
there was planned a national synod of the Lutheran 
churches for its adoption, to meet in 1578. Queen Eliza- 
beth had already asked the King of Denmark to intercede 



Stuart Anglicanism 237 

with the Elector of Saxony to prevent any condemnation 
of the doctrine of the Church of England, and had met 
with a polite rebuff from that representative of un- 
qualified Lutheranism. Her government appointed sev- 
eral theologians of high standing in the Church of England, 
to proceed to Schmalkald and attend this synod. But 
the plan for a synod fell through, as Martin Chemnitz 
would not attend it unless he were given security that 
there should be no alteration of the Formula of Concord. 
That statement of Lutheran doctrine was adopted by 
most of the Evangelical churches of Germany individually, 
and not by united action. 1 

(3) The reception of ministers of the Reformed churches 
of the Continent to clerical positions in England, without 
reordination, continued under James I, as provided in the 
Act of Elizabeth 13. Bishop Hall says of this: "I know 
those more than one, who by virtue only of that ordination 
they have brought with them from the other Reformed 
churches, have enjoyed spiritual promotion and livings." 
Bishop Cosin writes from France in Commonwealth times, 
to justify his holding communion with the Reformed 
Church of France: "If at any time a minister so ordained 
in their French churches, came to incorporate himself into 
ours, and to receive a charge of souls among us in the 
Church of England (as I have known some of them to 
have done so of late, and in many others before my time), 
our bishops did not reordain him before they admitted him 
to his charge, as they would have done if his former or- 
dination had been void." 2 As the religious troubles in 
France and the Low Countries drove many such into 

1 The correspondence is given in Leonard Hutter's Concordia Concors (Wittem- 
berg, 1621), and in Rudolph Hospinian's Concordia Discors (Geneva, 1678). 
The negotiations are described in Heinrich Heppe's history of the Formula of 
Concord. The Queen wrote to the King of Denmark that the only hope of the 
Papacy was in the discord of the Protestants (unicam salutis sitae spent positam 
ease videt Romanus Anti-Christus in nostris dissidiis). 

2 Child's Church and State under the Tudors, p. 299. 



238 The Historic Episcopate 

England, the number of presbyterially ordained rectors 
must have been considerable. "More than one," says 
Bishop Hall; "many," says Dr. Cosin. Known cases are: 

(a) Guillaume de Laune, who rendered the Book of 
Common Prayer into French for the use of the churches 
in the Channel Islands, made application to Dr. John 
Overall, Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield (1614-1618), 
for installation in a benefice to which he had been ap- 
pointed, and offered to submit to reordination if that he 
had from the Classis of Leyden were thought insufficient. 
Bishop Overall replied: "Reordination we must not ad- 
mit, no more than a rebaptism; but in case you find it 
doubtful whether you be a priest capable to receive bene- 
fice among us, or no, I shall do the same office for you 
that I should do for one who doubts of his baptism, ac- 
cording to the Book of Common Prayer, 'If thou hast 
not already/ etc. Yet for mine own part, if you will 
adventure upon the orders you have, I will admit your 
presentation, and give \ou institution into the living 
howsoever." De Laune afterwards was admitted to a 
benefice without any reordination. 1 

(b) Isaac Casaubon, the most erudite scholar of that age, 
was attracted to the Church of England by its deference 
to patristic antiquity. He came to England in 1610, and, 
although a layman, was given a prebendal stall in Canter- 
bury Cathedral. He became the intimate friend of Bishop 
Andrewes, who confirmed his son Meric Casaubon, but 
the father was received to communion without any such 
ceremony. He defended Andrewes against Romanist 
criticism in his notable Epistle to Fronto Ducceus. That 
great and devout bishop was on terms of close friendship 
with other Continental Protestants — Francis Junius, the 
great founder of Germanic philology; Daniel Heinsius, the 

1 Child: 297-298. 



Stuart Anglicanism 239 

first Latin poet of his ago, secretary to the Synod of Dort, 
and a philologist of European fame; Hugo Grotius, the 
great ornament of the Arminian party; Philip Cluverius, 
the first who brought science and method into the study 
of ancient geography; Thomas, the great Dutch Oriental- 
ist, whom he tried to attract to England; and Pierre du 
Moulin. 

(c) Pierre du Moulin, at one time pastor of the famous 
French church at Charenton, as near Paris as a Huguenot 
church would be allowed, came to England in 1615, and 
assisted King James in his King's Declaration for His 
Royal Right. He was also given a prebendal stall at 
Canterbury, but went back to Sedan as professor of theol- 
ogy. Bishop Andrewes had some correspondence with him 
as to the claims of episcopacy to apostolic origin, which the 
bishop defended. But he also wrote: " Though our 
government be of divine right, it follows not that without 
it there is no salvation, or that a church cannot exist. 
He must be blind who does not see churches existing with- 
out it. He must be made of iron who denies them salva- 
tion. We are not those iron people. We make a wide 
difference between those things." 1 

(d) His son, Peter du Moulin, also a minister of the 
Reformed Church of France, became rector of St. John's 
Church in Chester in 1625. He supported the Royalists 
in the Civil War, and was rewarded with a canonry at 
Canterbury and a royal chaplaincy at the Restoration. 
He was one of Milton's antagonists in the controversy as 
to the execution of Charles I. 2 

(e) Marco Antonio de Dominis, former Archbishop of 
Spalatro, during his Anglican period and residence in 
England (1616-1622), asked Dr. Thomas Morton, Bishop 
of Durham, to reordain a friend of his who had been 

1 Child's Church and State under the Tudors, pp. 300-301. 

2 Child, p. 301. 



240 The Historic Episcopate 

ordained in one of the foreign Reformed churches, that he 
might have "freer access to ecclesiastical benefices in 
England." Bishop Morton wrote to him that this could 
not be done without very grave scandal to the Reformed 
churches, for which he did not care to be responsible. 1 

(/) Gerard John Vossius, a minister of the Reformed 
Church of Holland, whose genius gave a new life to the 
study of classic antiquity, was invited over from Leyden 
by James I, and given a canonry at Canterbury, in 1629. 
His son, Isaac Vossius, also a minister of the Reformed 
Church of Holland, was the discoverer of the Medicean 
manuscript of the Ignatian epistles, in which was found 
the shorter recension of the Greek. Bishop Pearson, who 
defended the genuineness of that recension, invited him 
to England in 1670, and in 1673 he was made canon of 
Windsor. It was of him that Charles II said : "Here is a 
learned divine, who believes everything but the Bible." 

(g) In 1610 King James summoned to London John 
Spottiswoode, Andrew Lamb and Gavin Hamilton, three 
of the Scottish ministers whom he had invested with the 
title of bishop, and had them consecrated by the Bishops 
of London (George Abbot), Ely (Launcelot Andre wes), 
Worcester (Henry Parry), and Rochester (Richard Neale). 
To avoid the appearance of reviving claims of the Arch- 
bishops of York and Canterbury to jurisdiction over 
Scotland, they were excluded, but Dr. Bancroft, Arch- 
bishop of Canterbury, was present. "A question was 
raised," says Archbishop Spottiswoode, "by Dr. Andre wes, 
Bishop of Ely, touching the consecration of the Scottish 
bishops, who, as he said, ' must first be ordained presbjters, 
as having received no ordination from a bishop/ The 
Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Bancroft, who was by, 
maintained that 'there was no necessity, seeing that 

» Child: pp. 298-299. 



Stuart Anglicanism 241 

where bishops could not be had, the ordination given 
by presbyters must be esteemed lawful; otherwise it 
might be doubted if there was any lawful vocation in 
most of the Reformed churches.' This applauded by the 
other bishops, Ely acquiesced, and at the day and in the 
place appointed the three Scottish bishops were conse- 
crated." 1 

This is the testimony of an eyewitness and a partici- 
pant. But Dr. Peter Heylin, who was ten years old when 
this took place, gives a version of what was said which 
some Anglican historians much prefer. It is that Dr. 
Bancroft removed the scruples of Dr. Andrewes by the 
argument that episcopal orders could be conferred at 
once even on a layman, alleging the cases of Ambrose and 
Nectarius. When four other Scotch ministers were made 
bishops in 1661, Dr. Sheldon, Bishop of London, insisted 
on reordaining two of them, James Sharp and Robert 
Leighton, because they had been ordained by a presby- 
tery, although Sharp appealed to the precedent of 1610, 
and Leighton said, "I am persuaded I was in orders 
before." 2 

(4) The kindly relations to the " alien churches" in Eng- 
land lasted through the reign of James I. Shortly after the 
king's accession, Bishop Vaughan was welcomed by them 
to his new diocese of London. They reminded him that 
their churches were granted by charter from pious King 
Edward VI, in the year 1550; that although they had been 
dispersed by the persecution under Queen Mary, they had 
been restored to their privileges by Queen Elizabeth in 
1558, and had been in uninterrupted possession of these 
for nearly half a century. "It appears from our records," 

1 History of the Church of Scotland, by Archbishop John Spottiswoode (Edin- 
burgh, 1851), iii, 208-209. This is the "Precedent of 1610," to which the Lam- 
beth Conference of Anglican Bishops referred in 1909. 

2 The Episcopal Church of Scotland, by J. P. Lawson, pp. 715-716. 

16 



242 The Historic Episcopate 

they said, "how kind and friendly the pious Grindal was 
to us; and what pains the prudent Bishop Sandys took in 
composing our differences. We promise ourselves the like 
favor from your lordship." Bishop Vaughan replied: 
"I thank you, most dear brethren, for your kind address. 
I am sensible of the merits of John a Lasco, superintendent 
of your churches, and of the rest of my predecessors in this 
bishopric, who had reason to take your churches, which 
are of the same faith with our own, under their patronage, 
which I also am ready to do. I have known your churches 
twenty-five years to have been beneficial to the kingdom 
and serviceable to the Church of England, in which the 
Devil, the author of discord, has kindled the fire of dissen- 
sions, into which I pray you not to pour oil, but to en- 
deavor by your councils and prayers to extinguish." 

The king himself said to a deputation from these presby- 
terially governed churches: "I am sensible that you have 
enriched this kingdom with several arts and manufactures; 
and I swear to you that if anyone shall give you the least 
disturbance in your churches, upon your application to 
me, I will revenge your cause; and though you are no 
subjects of mine, I will maintain and cherish you as much 
as any prince in the world." 

The Anglican bishops acted in the same spirit. We 
find Dr. John King, Bishop of London, forbidding members 
of the alien churches to evade their discipline by with- 
drawing to the parish churches, and Dr. Harsnet, Bishop of 
Norwich, constraining one man to submit to their disci- 
pline and contribute to their support. Dr. Andrewes, in 
a published sermon, praised them for the care they took 
of their poor, "so that not one of these is seen to ask on 
the streets." 

The position of the churches in the Channel Islands was 
similar to that of the alien churches. Their people had 



Stuart Anglicanism 243 

received the principles of the Reformation from the 
French churches of Normandy, and they naturally adopted 
the Genevan regimen and discipline. In one of their 
churches the queen expressly sanctioned this, but enjoined 
the use of the English Book of Common Prayer in the rest. 
The governors of the islands found this impracticable, 
and the Genevan discipline and worship were set up by 
synods held under the countenance of the queen's repre- 
sentatives. On his accession King James made a grant 
under the privy seal, stating that his predecessor "did 
permit and allow to the Isles of Jersey and Guernsey, 
parcels of the Duchy of Normandy, the use of the govern- 
ment of the Reformed churches of the said duchy/ ' and 
ordering that "our said isles shall quietly enjoy their 
said liberty in the use of ecclesiastical discipline there now 
established." But Dr. Bancroft induced the king to 
disregard his promise, and to enforce upon the people of 
Jersey the worship and government of the Church of 
England, with the result that many left that island for 
Guernsey, and others for France or Holland. Yet the 
persistence of the people in their preference for the 
Genevan discipline was too much for the Bishop of Win- 
chester, to whose see the islands were attached. It was 
revived during the Civil War, and continued in use down 
to the nineteenth century. 

When Dr. William Laud became the primate of the 
Church of England and the trusted adviser of Charles I, 
he spared no pains to isolate the church from fraternal 
relations with the Reformed churches of the Continent, 1 

1 Dr. Laud was the first to enunciate the exclusive theory now so generally 
held by High Anglicans. "In his exercise for the degree of B.D. (in 1604) he 
maintained that there could be no true Church without diocesan bishops. Dr. 
Holland, the Regius Professor of Divinity, 'openly reprehended him in the schools 
for a seditious person, who would unchurch the Reformed Protestant Churches 
beyond seas, and sow division between us and them, who were brethren, by 
this novel Popish position' (Prynne). Heylin says that 'Laud was shrewdly 
rattled by Dr. Holland as one that did endeavor to cast a bone of discord be- 
tween the Church of England and the Reformed Churches beyond the seas." 
(Dean Lefroy.) 



244 The Historic Episcopate 

and to bring the alien churches in England into conformity 
to the Anglican government and ritual. He sent to ten 
of their congregations, numbering between five and six 
thousand communicants, a number of inquiries as to the 
liturgy they used in their services, how many of them 
were natives of England, and whether these conformed 
to the English ceremonies. The aliens protested against 
this claim to visitation as a violation of the charters, which 
had been twice confirmed by the reigning king and five 
times by his father. Dr. Laud seems to have reached the 
conclusion, based on neither facts nor documents, that the 
liberties granted these churches were to apply only to the 
first generation of their members, and that neither Edward 
nor Elizabeth nor James I could have meant any more than 
this. And of this he must have assured Charles I, as he 
also pleaded it on his trial in 1644. 

When the aliens alleged the records against Laud's 
theory, the king answered roughly, "We must believe our 
Archbishop of Canterbury," and gave orders that those 
who had been born in England should conform to the 
national Church. The effect of this was to wreck their 
churches, some being shut altogether, and others reduced 
to a handful by the emigration of their members to the 
Continent. It also injured the country by destroying 
the industries they had brought with them at their first 
coming. In Norwich, Bishop Wren, always the echo of 
his patron, Dr. Laud, "passionately and furiously pro- 
ceeded against them," Clarendon says; and three 
thousand workers in wool and cloth went over-sea to Hol- 
land. In Canterbury some thousand English workmen 
lost their employment through the migration of their 
alien employers. It was not charged upon these Protes- 
tant aliens that they had given any offence, even by show- 
ing sympathy for the Puritan party in England. Their 



Stuart Anglicanism, 245 

offence was their exercise of the hated discipline of Geneva, 
and their presuming to be churches of Christ without 
episcopal ordination of their ministers. Haman could 
have no peace while this Mordecai sat in the gate! "The 
bishops grew jealous," says Clarendon, "that the counte- 
nancing another discipline of the church here, by order 
of the state, would at least diminish the reputation and 
dignity of the episcopal government, and give some hope 
and countenance to the factious and schismatical party 
in England to hope for such a toleration." 

At the impeachment of Archbishop Laud by the House 
of Commons in 1644 it was alleged, as confirmatory of the 
suspicion of his being a papist, that he "sowed discord 
between the Church of England and foreign Protestants, 
not only by taking away the privileges and immunities of 
the French and Dutch churches in these kingdoms, but 
by denying their ministers to be true ministers, and theirs 
true churches." His answer was: "As to the French 
and Dutch churches in this kingdom, I did not question 
them for their ancient privileges, but for their new 
encroachments, for it was not the design of the queen to 
harbor them, unless they conformed to the English 
liturgy; now I insisted on this only with respect to those 
who were of the second descent, and born in England; 
and if all such had been obliged to go to their parish 
churches as they ought, they would not have done the 
Church of England so much harm as they have done 
since." The representatives of the Commons replied: 
"As to the French and Dutch churches, who were settled 
by charter in the reign of King Edward VI, Mr. Bulteel's 
book, 1 of the manifold troubles of these churches by this 

1 Relation of the Troubles of the Three Forraian Churches in Kent, caused by 
the Injunction of W . Laud, A. D., 1634. London, 1643. J. Bulteel was a minister 
of the Walloon Church in Canterbury. He enumerates ten foreign Reformed 
churches in England, with a membership of 5213 persons. 



246 The Historic Episcopate 

archbishop's persecutions, evidently proves that he invaded 
and diminished their ancient immunities and privileges in 
all parts; and that he was so far from being their friend, 
that they accounted him their greatest enemy." 

Dr. Laud was equally concerned to break off England 
from every degree of fellowship with the Reformed 
churches abroad. He evidently thought that even High 
Churchmen like Andrewes had been too tender in consider- 
ation of their defect in the matter of episcopal govern- 
ment. When Bishop Hall was preparing his Divine Right 
of Episcopacy, to meet the storm of opposition to diocesan 
prelacy which arose in England after the insurrection in 
Scotland, he submitted the manuscript to Dr. Laud for 
correction. The archbishop writes to him (November 11, 
1639): "You say that where episcopacy hath obtained, 
it cannot be abdicated without violation of God's ordi- 
nance. Never was there any church yet, where it hath 
not obtained; the Christian faith was never yet planted 
anywhere, but the very first feature of the body of a church 
was by, or with, episcopacy; and wheresoever now epis- 
copacy is not suffered to be, it is by such an abdication, 
for certainly it was there in principio. In your second 
you grant that the presbyterian government may be of 
use, where episcopacy may not be had. I pray you to 
consider, whether this concession be not needless here, 
and itself of dangerous consequence. Next I conceive 
there is no place where episcopacy may not be had, if 
there be a church more than in title only." And again 
(January 4, 1640) : "You do extremely well to distinguish 
the Scottish business from the state of the foreign churches; 
but yet to those churches and their authors you are a 
little more favorable than our case will now bear." 

This represents a new point of view, and, whatever his 
faults, Dr. Laud had the courage of his convictions. 



Stuart Anglicanism 247 

Throughout his period of supreme influence with Charles, 
he labored to draw the line on the Continent as strictly 
as at home. He got the king to issue orders to the diplo- 
matic representatives of the kingdom that they must 
cease to commune with the Reformed churches, and must 
have an Anglican chaplain to minister to the spiritual 
needs of their suite, and their resident " nationals." He 
next undertook to enforce conformity upon the "factories" 
of English and Scotch merchants resident at commercial 
centers on the Continent, prescribing that only episcopally 
ordained ministers, and those conformable to the English 
liturgy, be allowed to minister to them, and all others 
to be discharged within three months. Those whom he 
would allow were not to hold "classical assemblies," and 
to ordain ministers, "because by so doing they would 
maintain a standing nursery for nonconformity and 
schism." But the English ministers in the Low Countries 
replied in a petition setting forth the impossibility of 
obeying the king's order, and the risk they would run of 
losing the contribution the Dutch Government made for 
their maintenance. So the point was waived. 

The Princess Elizabeth, wife of the unfortunate Elector 
of the Palatinate, wrote to her brother the king asking for 
a collection for the relief of the Reformed ministers and 
people of that principality, who had been driven out by 
the Catholic League for their religion. The king had a 
brief drawn up in the usual language, stating that these 
sufferers were such "for their sincerity and constancy in 
the true religion, which we together with them profess, 
and which we are all bound in conscience to maintain to 
the utmost of our powers." It also was said of them that 
they "might have enjoyed their estates and fortunes if 
they would have submitted themselves to the anti- 
Christian yoke, and have renounced or dissembled the 



248 The Historic Episcopate 

profession of their religion." When this was submitted 
to Dr. Laud, he objected that these Palatines were not 
of the same religion as the Church of England, being 
Calvinists and having no episcopal ordination. Also 
that the phrase " anti-Christian yoke" was an unworthy 
reflection on the Church of Rome, and would reflect upon 
the Church of England, whose orders were derived from 
hers. So a colorless appeal was substituted, which met 
with no success. When Dr. Sibbes and others of the 
"conformable Puritans" sent out a private appeal asking 
for a more generous aid to these Protestant sufferers, Dr. 
Laud brought them before the Court of High Commission. 
Of that court he was the president, and it invariably 
acted on his suggestion; so he had their collection stopped. 
It was alleged at his trial that he refused to allow the 
Confession of Faith of the Palatine Church to be printed 
in English; and to this charge he made no answer. 

When the controversy over episcopacy broke out, on 
the eve of the Civil War, both parties looked to the Re- 
formed churches on the Continent for moral support. 
The old-fashioned High Churchmen would naturally expect 
those churches to maintain that friendly attitude toward 
the Church of England which had existed in the reigns of 
Elizabeth and James. But the members of the alien 
churches, now scattered over France and the Low Coun- 
tries by Archbishop Laud's intolerance and King Charles's 
faithlessness, and the Puritan refugees driven from their 
ministry in England to find safety on the Continent, 
had diffused the intelligence that the royal school of 
theologians denied the existence of a valid ministry apart 
from episcopacy. 1 This served to rally the foreign Pro- 

1 An important contribution to the defence of the popular cause was the 
book Rerum nuper in Regno Scotiae Gestarum Historia (Dantzig, i. e., Amster- 
dam, 1641). It is a compilation from Robert Baillie's letters to his cousin 
William Spang, the pastor of the Scottish church at Campvere, Holland, trans- 
lated by him into very fair Latin. Pages 143-184 are an account of the episco- 



Stuart A nglicanisfH 249 

testants to the support of the party of reform. Only 
Joan Diodati of Geneva and Moise Amyraut of Saumur 
suggested even an accommodation. Gerard Vossius of 
Leyden, the first classical scholar of his age, David 
Blondel, who was to succeed him, Claude de Saumaise, 
who was to bear the brunt of Milton's wrath for his 
attack upon the regicide of 1649, Jan Hoornbeek of 
Utrecht, the ablest controversial theologian of his day, 
and others besides, either refused to meddle in the fray 
or entered the lists for Presbyterian ordination or disci- 
pline. The Reformed churches stood for Geneva against 
the new Canterbury which Laud had created. "This 
animosity," says Clarendon, " proved of unspeakable in- 
convenience and damage to the king throughout all these 
troubles, and of equal benefit to his enemies." 

The theory of early Anglicans as to the Church and its 
ministry corresponded to the practice of the Church before 
the accession of Archbishop Laud. It is true that Dr. 
Bancroft in his famous sermon of 1589 effected a new 
departure in claiming for the diocesan episcopacy of 
England an apostolic origin and historic tradition, of 
which the early English Protestants had known nothing. 
Archbishop Whitgift, who was ready to agree to the aboli- 
tion of episcopacy if the queen willed it, is said to have 
remarked on that sermon that it had done much good, 

pacy of Scotland and England, and its contrasts to the pastoral episcopate of 
the early Church. Stress naturally is laid upon the servile political principles 
of the Anglican churchmen, a subject I have avoided. Dr. Littledale (The 
Petrine Claims, pp. 147-148), speaking of the servile temper introduced into 
the early Church, after the empire became Christian, says: "The like phenome- 
non is visible on a smaller scale in the adulation with which the Anglican clergy, 
already demoralized by nearly a century of the Tudor tyranny, greeted the 
accession of James I, in their joy at finding that he had no mind to favor the 
Presbyterianism in which he had been raised; but they had the advantage of 
receiving their chastisement somewhat sooner, in the overthrow of their polity 
as a consequence of their identification of Church interests with the unconstitu- 
tional action of Charles I." The school of Laud never could have attained any 
large influence in England but for the shelter Charles I gave it from both the 
canons of the Church, the laws of the land, and the convictions of the English 
people. Dr. Littledale should not kick down the ladder by which his party 
climbed to recognition and power. 



250 The Historic Episcopate 

although for his part he rather wished it than believed it 
true. That it furnished what seemed stronger ground 
for resisting the Puritans may have induced the weaker 
minds to accept and support its teaching. But we have 
no right to assert this of others, who now formed a body 
of convinced Episcopalians, some asserting a divine right 
for that form of government, and others contenting them- 
selves with insisting upon its apostolic origin. But 
even the former did not presume to sit in judgment upon 
the other Reformed churches, and to declare them desti- 
tute of a valid ministry. They had too much respect for 
the attitude of the Church of England, and too much 
regard for the spiritual work and life they saw in the 
Scottish and Continental churches, to allow of this. So 
far as I can find, only Archbishops Laud and Neale and 
Bishop Taylor advanced toward this attitude of denial. 
Dr. Laud, in his defence before the House of Lords, said: 

To the objection of the foreign Protestant churches, I deny that 
I have endeavored to sow discord between them, but I have 
endeavored to unite the Calvinists and Lutherans; nor have I 
absolutely unchurched them. I say, indeed, in my book 
against Fisher (the Jesuit), according to St. Jerome, 'No 
bishop, no Church'; 1 and that none but a bishop can ordain, 
except in cases of inevitable necessity; and whether that be the 
case with the foreign churches, the world must judge. 

Jeremy Taylor, in his work Of the Sacred Order and 
Offices of Episcopacy (1642), shows himself even narrower 
than his patron, Dr. Laud. He says: "Supposing that 
ordination by a bishop is necessary for the vocation of 
priests and deacons, as I have proven it is, and, therefore, 
for the founding and perpetuating of a Church, either God 
hath given to all churches opportunity and possibility of 
such ordinations, and then, necessity of the contrary is 

1 The representatives of the Commons corrected this quotation. Jerome had 
said " Ubi non est sacerdos, non est ecclesia" ("Where there is no priest, there is 
no church"). What I have already quoted from Jerome makes it impossible 
that he should have identified the existence of the Church with the episcopate. 



Stuart Anglicanism 251 

but pretence and mockery; or if he hath not given such 
possibility, then there is no Church there to be either built 
or continued, but the candlestick is presently removed." 
However, he also says: "But shall we then condemn those 
few of the Reformed churches, whose ordinations always 
have been without bishops? No, indeed, that must not be; 
they stand or fall to their own Master. And though I can- 
not justify their ordinations, yet what degree their necessity 
is of, what their desire of episcopal ordinations may do 
for their personal excuse, and how far a good life and a 
Catholic belief may lead a man in the way to heaven, 
although the forms of external communion be not observed, 
I cannot determine.' ' 

These are the utterances of the small handful of ex- 
treme Anglicans of the school of Laud, in opposition even 
to the position of High Anglicans like Drs. Bancroft, 
Andrewes, Hall, Cosin and Bramhall. Even these fall 
short of the language used after the Restoration, and 
revived in the last century. They involve a criticism of 
the Church of England no less than of the Reformed 
churches generally. To show the general consensus of 
Anglican opinion against this school, I have given in an 
appendix in a chronological order, the testimonies of a 
series of divines of the Church of England, between 
Cranmer and Bramhall, which should be compared with 
the Catena of Anglican testimonies for the apostolical 
succession, which Dr. Newman prepared for one of his 
Tracts for the Times. It will go to explain why the author 
of that Catena, in his later years, declared that "apostolical 
succession, its necessity and its grace, is not an Anglican 
tradition, though it is a tradition held in the Anglican 
Church." It is, in fact, nothing but the "private judg- 
ment" of a minority of Anglican theologians, on a point on 
which the Church of England has never spoken its mind; 



252 The Historic Episcopate 

and it was not the prevalent j udgment in the great period be- 
tween the accession of Edward VI and the return of Charles 
II to the office and duties of ''Defender of the Faith." 

In the closing decades of that period the passions of 
the Civil War and the mutual reprisals of the Anglican and 
the Puritan parties changed the situation radically, and 
possibly permanently. The early Puritans had been 
merely dissatisfied members of the Church of England, 
asking for the removal of a few offensive ceremonies, for 
the withdrawal of prelatic pomp and jurisdiction from the 
bishops, for their association with the clergy in national 
and diocesan synods, and for the erection of a more 
efficient discipline for both clergy and laity. They 
neither wished to leave the church, nor to abolish or alter 
radically its liturgy, nor to eradicate episcopacy. They 
were distinct from the small body of Separatists or 
Brownists, who in America were represented by the 
Pilgrim Fathers, and who rejected the very idea of a 
national Church. 

The Puritans seem to have been the greater number of 
those in England who really cared for the things of the 
Spirit; and if they had been met in a conciliatory spirit 
by the statesmen and the churchmen of their time, all 
differences might have been disposed of without sacrifice 
of principle on either side. Even after the turmoil of the 
Civil War the major part of them would have accepted a 
settlement of the Church which would have cost the 
Anglicans nothing. The new Act of Uniformity still 
reserved to the king the power to admit to the Church 
foreign Protestant ministers, without reordination, as was 
done in the case of the younger Vossius and others. But 
no such recognition was extended to the presbyterian 
ordination of Richard Baxter or Philip Henry. They 
were excluded by the demand that they should confess 



Stuart Anglicanism 253 

their ministry a nullity, and their ministerial acts a profane 
presumption. 

The settlement of 1662 was effected in the spirit of Dr. 
Sheldon, afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury, with the 
wish and hope of excluding as many of the Puritans as 
possible. He told the Earl of Manchester that he had 
been afraid that too many of the Puritans would conform, 
"but now we know their minds, we will make them all 
knaves if they conform." Not that he and his associates 
looked forward to the division of England between estab- 
lished and free churches. They were confident of the 
ability and the willingness of the royal government to 
compel uniformity, and of the ultimate submission of the 
English people to the national Church. They mistook 
both Charles II and the English people. He had had 
enough of exile, and he was resolved to go to no extreme 
which might lead to civil war. They had tasted the 
sweets of religious liberty under the Protector, and they 
never again would yield to ecclesiastical coercion. 

Between the restoration of the Stuarts and the accession 
of the House of Hanover, the high church party worked 
out Laud's theory with a thoroughness which would have 
startled even him. Cyprian of Carthage became their 
master and their model. The Cyprianic conception of 
the Church, as a visible corporation, constituted in the 
bishop, and within whose bounds alone, and at the instance 
of whose priests alone, the Holy Spirit confers grace and 
salvation, was accepted heartily, although it lies under 
the condemnation of the Synod of Aries, and, by 
implication, of that of Nice. Dr. Henry DodwelFs 
Dissertationes Cyprianicce (1682), Bishop Fell's edition of 
Cyprian's works (1682), Bishop Sage's Principles of the 
Cyprianic Age, with Regard to Episcopal Power and Juris- 
diction, Asserted (1695), and Dr. Nathaniel Marshall's 



254 The Historic Episcopate 

Translation of the Genuine Works of St. Cyprian (1717) 
are among the indications of their excessive regard for the 
martyr bishop and his theories. For had not Cyprian 
resisted a pope, and handed over to Satan those who 
resisted the bishops? 

This was a much narrower view of the nature and extent 
of the Church than the papacy ever had sanctioned; but 
it suited the temper of the times and of the school. It 
culminated in Dr. Dodwell's Epistolary Discourse, Proving 
from the Scriptures and the First Fathers that the Soul is a 
Principle naturally Mortal, but Immortalized actually by 
the Pleasure of God to Punishment or Reward, by its Union 
with the Divine Baptismal Spirit. 1 Wherein is Proved that 
None have the Power of Giving this Immortalizing Spirit, 
since the Apostles, but only the Bishops (London, 1706). 
In his Separation of Churches from Episcopal Government 
Proved Schismatical (1679) he already had warned the 
dissenters that they placed themselves outside the cove- 
nant of mercy and the ark of safety, where the floods of 
divine wrath might at any moment sweep them to destruc- 
tion; and assured them that to be within a Church gov- 
erned by bishops was a better evidence of a state of sal- 
vation than any good works done outside it. Nor did 
he now, as some have supposed, dispose of them by anni- 
hilation at death. That favor he reserves for pagans and 
unbaptized children, while unbelievers and dissenters are 
to be kept in existence by the express will of God, that 
they may receive unending damnation in the lowest depth 
of hell! 

1 It does not seem to have occurred to any of those who denied the validity 
of baptism conferred by any but a bishop, or an episcopally ordained priest, 
that their royal model, "Charles the Martyr," was baptized by a Presbyterian 
minister, who received his orders from a presbytery. It might even be worth 
while to compare the quality of the grace conferred in baptism by a Roman 
Catholic bishop on James I; by a Presbyterian minister upon Charles I; and 
by Episcopal bishops upon Charles II and James II. Presbyterians do not 
admire Charles I, and with good reason. But they are willing to stand by the 
comparison. 



Stuart Anglicanism 255 

The efforts of James II to Romanize the Church of 
England brought about something like a truce between 
churchmen and nonconformists. Even Dr. William Cave 
reminded the latter that the Church of England had passed 
no judgment on those churches which have dispensed with 
episcopacy. Several others of the participants in the 
great controversy with Rome during that reign rejected 
the propositions that episcopacy is essential to the being 
of a church, and baptism is valid only when conferred by 
bishops or those they have ordained. Dr. Sancroft, the 
primate, urged his brethren to cultivate friendly relations 
with the nonconformists, and to pray with them for the 
union of all the Reformed churches, at home and abroad. 
The persecutions in France, following the Revocation of 
Nantes, 1685, brought a great immigration of Huguenots, 
pastors and people; and the former seem to have been 
admitted to minister in several of the London churches, 
which were frequented by their people. A livelier interest 
in the Reformed churches on the Continent sprang up, 
and schemes of " comprehension" were discussed for the 
restoration of the nonconformists to the Established 
Church. 

The most promising of these came in the years after the 
Revolution of 1688, largely through the efforts of Dr. 
John Tillotson, the new Archbishop of Canterbury. In 
the struggle between the Church of England and the king, 
in the years before the Revolution, the nonconformists 
generally had refused to make common cause with the 
Roman Catholics against the Anglican Church, although 
the king tried to win their support by an illegal indulgence 
of their worship. It was felt that this entitled them to 
some consideration, and a law extending toleration to 
their worship was passed by Parliament. This marked 
the end of the effort, begun in 1662, to coerce the noncon- 



256 The Historic Episcopate 

formists into conformity; and in the breakdown of one 
half the policy of Dr. Sheldon and the Earl of Clarendon, 
the other half was involved. It never had been their 
intention to acquiesce in the permanent division of the 
kingdom between several communions. Nor had the 
more " conformable" Puritans lost either hope or desire 
of returning to the communion of the national Church. 
The Presbyterians generally and the greater part of the 
Congregationalists were prepared to accept a reunion on 
the following terms: (1) The recognition of presbyterian 
ordination performed in England, as the law permitted 
with that ordination when performed in France under the 
terms of the Act of Conformity of 1662. (2) The op- 
tional (in place of the compulsory) use of the cross in 
baptism, kneeling at the Communion, and the wearing of 
the surplice. 

A bill to enact these concessions was proposed in 
Parliament, but at the instance of the House of Lords the 
plan was referred to a royal commission, while at that 
of the House of Commons the question was referred to 
the Convocation of the Church. The commission pre- 
pared a measure involving some alterations in the Book 
of Common Prayer. The bishops generally were favor- 
able, Bishop Beveridge being an exception. Mr. Hunt 
says that both the toleration bill and the comprehension 
"had the approbation of the nonjuring bishops," who had 
refused to acknowledge William and Mary as the sovrans 
of the English nation, and therefore "the supreme rulers" 
of its Church. But the lower House of Convocation was 
of an entirely different temper. After hearing a sermon 
from Bishop Beveridge against all alterations, it chose as 
its prolocutor Dr. William Jane, the uncompromising 
head of the High Church party. The plan formulated by 
the royal commission did not even come to a vote. The 



Stuart Anglicanism 257 

question continued to undergo discussion in the early 
years of Queen Anne's reign, but the dominant party was 
Jacobite in its sympathies, felt no gratitude to the non- 
conformists for aiding in the defeat of King James, and 
had no motive for reversing the policy of Sheldon. 1 

It might have been expected that the accession of 
the House of Hanover to the throne of England, with 
the hearty support of the nonconformists, would have re- 
opened the question of comprehension. But the two first 
Georges, and their English advisers, were more anxious 
to "let sleeping dogs lie" than to take any risks out of 
gratitude to their friends. Some hopes of action grew 
out of a friendly conference between the primate, Dr. 
Thomas Herring, and Dr. Phillip Doddridge, a noncon- 
formist who had a half-dozen bishops among his corre- 
spondents. But this also came to nothing. "I can tell 
you of certain science," wrote Bishop Warburton, "that 
not the least alteration will be made in the ecclesiastical 
system. The present ministry were bred up under, and 
act entirely upon, the maxims of the last. And one of the 
principal of theirs was, Not to stir what is quiet." So 
the situation created by the quarrels of the seventeenth 
century came to be accepted as part of the natural order 
of English life. 

From the disappearance of the Nonjuring party, the 
interest in questions of Church order and government was 
very slight. It was revived in the colonies in a languid 
way by the proposal to establish an American episcopate, 
instead of leaving the Episcopal churches of that large 
district in the hands of the Bishop of London. At home 

1 The violence of the party almost exceeds belief. It is well known that some 
of them took seriouslj' De Foe's Shortest Way with Dissenters (1702), namely, to 
hang them. Dr. John Jortin tells of hearing a preacher say: "If anyone denies 
the uninterrupted succession of bishops, I shall not scruple to call him a down- 
right atheist;" and adds: "This, when I was young, was sound, orthodox, and 
fashionable doctrine." He was sixteen at Queen Anne's death. 

17 



258 The Historic Episcopate 

the rulers of the Church managed to repeat the blunder of 
the previous century in dealing with Methodists. They 
detached these from the Church of England, and created 
a new rival in the affections of the English people. At the 
close of every century since the Reformation, English 
religion presents a more lamentable spectacle of strife 
and division than at its beginning. 

Near the close of the Stuart period a remarkable pro- 
posal came to the government of Queen Anne, from 
Friedrich, the first King of Prussia, who had been author- 
ized in 1700 to add this title to that of Elector of Branden- 
burg. An inclination toward the Church of England had 
existed for some time in northern Germany, and had led 
Anthony Horneck and John Ernest Grabe to migrate to 
England, where they won recognition as authors, while 
Leibnitz published a brochure suggesting the introduction 
of "the venerable English hierarchy " into the Protestant 
churches of Germany. Friedrich was zealous for Christian 
union, first between the Lutheran majority of his own 
subjects, and the Reformed minority, to which the 
Hohenzollerns had belonged since 1619; and then be- 
tween all the Protestant churches of Europe, against the 
persecuting government of France. 

Friedrich had been convinced by Leibnitz of the im- 
portance of bishops as adjuncts to the state of a Christian 
king, and had conferred the title upon the two ecclesiastics 
— Reformed and Lutheran — who had officiated at his 
coronation. Bishop Jablonsky of the Moravian Church, 
who had visited England, and had been attracted by the 
worship and government of her church, was among his 
friends and advisers. At his suggestion steps were taken 
to assimilate the Prussian churches to the Anglican. 
The Book of Common Prayer was translated into German, 
and on Advent Sunday in 1706 its use was begun in the 



Stuart Anglicanism 259 

royal chapel and the cathedrals, and allowed in all other 
churches. Copies of the translation were sent to Queen 
Anne, and to Dr. Thomas Tenison, Archbishop of Canter- 
bury. The queen and her advisers were very cordial in 
their reception of the book, and its accompanying sugges- 
tion of the adoption of episcopacy by the churches of 
Prussia. Dr. Tenison failed to receive his copy, and when 
his attention was called to it, made answer that he declined 
any correspondence with the Protestants of Germany. 
The reason he gave was that the university of Helmstadt 
had declared that it was lawful and proper for a Protestant 
princess to renounce her faith, when she had the prospect 
of a marriage with a Roman Catholic prince! It was not 
the university, but its professor, John Fabricius, who had 
made this declaration, and he had been retired from his 
chair for it, and for issuing it as the work of the university. 
Nor was the King of Prussia in any degree responsible for 
the doings of that university, which lay within the Duchy 
of Brunswick. 

In 1710 the project was revived, at the instance of 
Bishop Jablonsky, who, by advice of the English ambassa- 
dor in Berlin, now addressed Dr. John Sharp, Archbishop 
of York. He received the proposal for a closer union 
between the churches very heartily, as did Dr. John 
Robinson, then Bishop of Bristol, who had been English 
envoy to Sweden. The correspondence continued for two 
years, and then languished. The death of Friedrich in 
1713 put an end to the project, as his successor — best 
known to us as the father of the great Friedrich — had no 
interest in such matters. 

Had the discussion proceeded farther, a grave legal 
obstacle to the proposal of Bishop Jablonsky would have 
been brought into the light. As English law stood from 
the Reformation until 1786, no bishop of the Church 



260 The Historic Episcopate 

could consecrate anyone as bishop who was not a subject 
of the King of England, who did not acknowledge his 
supremacy over the Church, and who had not taken the 
oath of canonical obedience to the Archbishop of Canter- 
bury. Except that the law of 1786 allowed of the conse- 
cration of subjects of another state, the law continued thus 
until 1874, although latterly evaded, and even openly 
disobeyed, by English bishops. The Church of England 
was thus more insular than the country, and its episcopacy 
more narrowly national than had ever been known in 
any part of Christendom. 



CHAPTER X 

Modern Anglicanism 

The French Revolution seemed to many contemporary- 
observers to be merely destructive of the existing order 
and the established beliefs of the civilized world. But the 
agitation of the mind of Europe which it produced, proved 
to be the beginning of a new era of construction and ap- 
preciation. In all the arts, in sociology, and in theology 
it was found to have 

wiped the slate 

Clean for the ciphering of a nobler fate, 

and to have made possible the justification of what was 
lasting and excellent in older methods of thought and 
action. 

No single result of this great mental disturbance has 
been more far-reaching than the rise of Romanticism. 
This had its forerunners, indeed, in Johann Georg Hamann 
and Edmund Burke, each in his way maintaining the 
superior worth of what had stood the test of history, 
against novelties and " improvements" suggested by the 
analytic understanding. But the Romanticists were less 
occupied with general considerations of this kind than 
with the vindication and glorification of that period of 
history which the Illuminists of the century then closing 
had made the target of their contempt — the Middle 
Ages. As Friedrich La Motte Fouque justly said, it is 
to be regretted that this was too often associated with an 

261 



262 The Historic Episcopate 

unreasoning and unjust contempt for periods of not less 
greatness, especially the Reformation. Hence the seces- 
sion of so many Romanticists to the Church of Rome — 
of the Stolbergs, Friedrich Schlegel, Werner, Brentano, 
Haller, Meinhold, Kenelm Digby, and others. But the 
school rendered a great service to mankind in the demoli- 
tion of prejudices, in the restoration of Christian art, 
and in the awakening of a historic spirit, which passed 
beyond their party limits and transformed the intellec- 
tual activity of Europe. 

Romanticism arising in Germany, soon found a wel- 
come in Great Britain. Two Scotch Presbyterians, Sir 
Walter Scott and Edward Irving, may be regarded as the 
first who were animated by its spirit. But its greatest 
activity outside of literature was in the Oxford Move- 
ment, represented first by Dr. John Henry Newman's 
Tracts for the Times (1833-1841). The original purpose 
of that movement was limited to the defence of the Church 
of England against the encroachments of the Liberal 
party, which seemed to have acquired a lasting tenure 
of power through the Reform bill of 1832. England for 
centuries had been controlled by the nobles and gentry, 
who elected a majority of the House of Commons. Sud- 
denly this control was transferred to the middle classes — 
to the peril, as was believed, of the Established Church. 
The reduction of the number of Protestant bishops in 
Ireland, and the appropriation of the income thus saved 
to the maintenance of schools, was taken to indicate a 
purpose to deal with Church property generally after the 
example of Henry VIII. The purpose of those who pro- 
posed the publication of the Tracts was to impress upon 
the new majority the various excellences and legal rights 
of the "Establishment," somewhat in the spirit of the old 
"High and Dry" churchmen, or at utmost to arouse 



Modem i 1 Hglica n ism 263 

toward it something like the loyalty of the Cavalier party 
of the seventeenth century. 

Genius, however, is always an incalculable force; and 
John Henry Newman had the sensitiveness of a man of 
genius to the tendencies of his time. He spread his 
sails more widely than did the Percivals and the Roses 
of his day, and was caught by winds which bore him in 
unexpected directions, and finally landed him in the 
Church of Rome, in company with a good number of 
his friends and disciples. 

Very early in the series of the Tracts, the episcopal 
government of the Church of England, and the succession 
of these bishops by consecration and in authority from the 
Apostles, came to the front. This dogma of the Apostolic 
Succession was presented in the absolute fashion of the 
divines of the later Stuart reigns, and of their master 
and model, Cyprian of Carthage. That the spiritual 
grace of the New Covenant is confined to bodies governed 
by monarchic bishops, and holding the orthodox creeds 
elaborated by the six General Councils, was their convic- 
tion. That the diocesan bishops of the English Church 
were officials of the same kind with the urban and pastoral 
bishops of the early centuries, they never doubted for a 
moment. Their assumptions were challenged by members 
of their own communion, who pointed to gifts of the Spirit 
which had fallen on Christians outside this privileged 
circle, and were evidenced by sanctity of life, devotion to 
the common Master, fruitfulness in good works, and zeal 
for the truth. Of these things they cared to know as 
little as possible, and when they were pressed upon their 
attention, they explained by a reference to "the uncove- 
nanted mercies" of God. As here and there a soul out- 
side the bounds of the Old Covenant — a Rahab or a 
Ruth — had been touched by grace and allowed to share 



264 The Historic Episcopate 

in the benefits which properly belonged to the elect 
people, so under the Christian dispensation it might hap- 
pen that some were saved through the unsearchable 
mercies of God, although they lived in no contact with 
the appointed channels of grace. But there could be no 
greater presumption than to count on such irregular and in- 
explicable favors. " Salvation is from the Jews," our Lord 
himself had said to the Samaritan woman. So salvation 
is of the episcopally ruled and directed. 1 

A striking character of the movement was its conduct 
by an individual doctor, who, with no special calling or 
authorization, set himself to take care of the rulers of his 
Church and direct them into the ways of wisdom. When 
the Tracts ceased in 1841, at the request of the Bishop 
of Oxford, not a single English bishop, except Dr. Phill- 
potts of Exeter, was in agreement with their teaching as 
to the constitution of the Church and the rights of its 
rulers. From the bishops in their annual Charges had 
come the strongest language of protest and condemnation 
of the Tracts, in some cases amounting to an impeachment 
of the honesty and loyalty of their authors. If Dr. New- 
man was right, the English Episcopate showed itself 
remarkably incompetent for the teaching of its people 
as regards the very terms on which salvation is possible. 
The primate of that day, Dr. John Bird Sumner, in reply 

1 Not all of the party were so logical as this. Some of them stood rather with 
the earlier Anglicans in admitting that in "exceptional cases," and especially 
"cases of necessity," even an invalid ministry might be the channel of spiritual 
gifts. Thus Rev. William Denton, in The Grace of the Ministry (London, 1872), 
says: "The validity of ordinations given by presbyters in case of necessity has 
occasionally been supported by writers in the Church of England, and without 
censure. Nor does it seem that this opinion, if rightly understood, and discreetly 
advanced, involves any consequences injurious to religion; since, were it even 
admitted that presbyters might confer a valid ordination, this would not infer 
that ministers of sects and heresies are truly ministers of God; for no one would 
allow that the priests of the Arians, or the Monophysites, or Donatists, were 
ministers of Jesus Christ, though they had actually received a valid ordination so 
far as external form was concerned." If Athanasius had acted on this principle 
on the overthrow of Arianism, as Lucifer of Cagliari and the Meletian party in 
Antioch insisted that he ought, what would have become of the Church in the 
fourth century? And the Donatist bishops were offered full recognition if they 
would give up their extravagant principle as to discipline. 



Modern Anglicanism 265 

to a letter of inquiry as to the judgment of the Church of 
England on the validity of the orders of the Protestant 
Churches on the Continent, wrote: 

I can hardly imagine that there are two bishops on the bench, 
or one clergyman in fifty throughout our Church, who would 
deny the validity of the orders of these Clergy, solely on 
account of their wanting the imposition of episcopal hands. 

And when his view was challenged, he wrote again: 

I knew that neither our Articles nor our formularies justified 
such an opinion. I knew that many of our eminent divines 
had disclaimed such an opinion; and I knew that such an 
opinion would amount to declaring that no valid sacramental 
or other ministerial act had ever been performed except under 
an episcopal form of government. 

This note of an unbounded regard for Episcopacy in 
the abstract, along with a virtual disparagement of actual 
bishops, was not confined to Tractarians of the first age. 
While many, possibly a majority, of the Anglican bishops 
throughout the world to-day would accept what the bishops 
of 1841 denounced as novelties, the " Anglo-Catholic' ' 
is frequently keenly critical and often abusive of the 
"Right Reverend Father in God," for whom he claims a 
vast authority over everybody else. This alone would be 
sufficient proof of the fundamental difference in spirit 
and method, between the Church of the Fathers and the 
Church of England. In what corner of primitive Chris- 
tendom could such a movement as that of the Oxford 
divines have been carried forward in the face of a general 
and emphatic disapproval from the bishops of that prov- 
ince? Or — to come to more recent agitations — in what 
primitive paroikia would a bishop have allowed the 
establishment of a style of public worship by his clergy 
which he regarded as canonically unlawful and doctrinally 
misleading? Or in what early see was it left to the pres- 
byters to decide with whom that church was in com- 



266 The Historic Episcopate 

munion, and whom it regarded as schismatic or her- 
etical? 1 

In 1841 the government of the German state, which 
had made unavailing advances to the Church of England 
in 1707-1713, again opened the subject, but in a somewhat 
different way. King Friedrich Wilhelm IV of Prussia, 
"the Romanticist on the throne' ' of the Hohenzollerns, 
proposed to the British government that an Anglican 
bishop should be appointed for Jerusalem, each govern- 
ment nominating alternately, with authority to take 
under his care other "Protestant churches," who chose to 
accept this arrangement. In the case of the German 
churches it was stipulated that their pastors hereafter 
should receive episcopal ordination, but that their sub- 
scription should be to the Confession of Augsburg, and 
not to the Thirty-nine Articles, and that they should con- 
tinue the use of the liturgy required by German law in 
their churches. 

Bishops Andrewes, Hall and Cosin would have found 
the proposal entirely acceptable, especially in view of the 
source from which it came, and the suggestion made at 
the time that this was a first step tow r ard a farther approxi- 
mation between the two Churches. Even Archbishop 
Laud and Dr. Dodwell hardly could have rejected it, 
especially as it was to be carried through with careful 
avoidance of proselytizing at the expense of the eastern 
communions. The English bishops consulted by the 
British government — Drs. Howley of Canterbury, Kaye 

1 The attitude of Dr. Newman and his party toward the Continental Protes- 
tants was shown in the case of Pastor Sporlein of Antwerp. He took break- 
fast with the great Tractarian and a number of his younger friends, and put 
before them some of his difficulties between rationalists in the consistory and 
pietists in the congregation. He was told that it was his duty to submit to the 
Roman Catholic Bishop of Antwerp, as there is no faith but that of the Church, 
and no salvation but in her communion. Even Dr. Pusey is said to have re- 
marked that this was like telling a man who complained of toothache, that an 
infallible remedy would be cutting off his head. (See A Memoir of Baron 
Bunsen by His Widow, vol. i, pp. 613-614.) 



Modern Anglicanism 267 

of Lincoln and Bloomfield of London — gave it their un- 
qualified approval; nor is it known that one of the whole 
bench would have done otherwise. Even friends of the 
Tractarian movement in some cases cooperated. Dr. 
Hook of Leeds subscribed to the fund to endow the new 
bishopric, and defended his action publicly; Mr. Glad- 
stone, after some hesitation, became one of its trustees. 
But most of the party were filled with alarm. Dr. Pusey, 
who had spoken a good word for the German theologians 
against Dr. Rose in 1828, protested in a pamphlet un- 
worthy of his learning and his general fair-mindedness. 
Mr. Palmer (of Worcester College) protested against any 
step which would identify the Church of England with 
Protestantism. Dr. Newman lodged with the primate 
and his own bishop his solemn protest against the trans- 
action, which indeed helped to cut the ties that bound him 
to the Church of England. "This was the third blow," 
he says, " which finally shattered my faith in the Anglican 
Church. . . As to the project, I never heard of any 
good or harm it has ever done, except what it has done for 
me. . . It brought me on to the beginning of the end." 1 
The Cyprianic theory of the Church and its ministry, 
which the Oxford movement revived in the Church of 
England, and which led to this stir over the Jerusalem 
episcopate, has been elaborated especially as a doctrine 
of Apostolic Succession. This makes its appeal to that 
love of historic continuity which the historians of the last 
century did so much to foster in Germany and in England, 
and which stands in such close relation to the Romanticist 

1 Apologia (New York: 1865), pp. 181-186. In Germany the project had no 
support outside the circle of the king's personal and official friends. When the 
see became vacant for the third time, in 1881, the Prussian government allowed 
the arrangement to lapse by making no nomination. The present king, Em- 
peror William, has taken care to have German Protestantism represented in 
Jerusalem by purely German institutions. 

In our own times the High Church party has moved toward an Anglican 
bishop for Egypt, ignoring the patriarchs who sit in what they call "the see of 
«lt. Mark." 



268 The Historic Episcopate 

tendency. But, like much else that has been treated as 
historic by scholars of that school, the Anglican theory 
rests upon assumptions which will not bear the test of 
close examination. I say the Anglican theory, for some 
sort of Apostolic Succession is held by all the Churches 
which belong to either the Lutheran or the Reformed 
groups, and by none more distinctly than our Presbyterian 
Church. The conveyance of authority to minister in 
word and sacrament is transmitted in our Church from 
one generation to another; and those who undertake to 
exercise these functions without ordination would be 
subjected to discipline. The Westminster Confession 
speaks of "the officers Christ hath appointed for the edi- 
fication of his Church,'' and declares that "to these officers 
the keys of the kingdom of heaven are committed, by 
virtue whereof they have power respectively to retain and 
remit sins, to shut that kingdom against the impenitent, 
both by word and censures, and to open it unto penitent 
sinners by the ministry of the gospel, and by absolution 
from censures, as occasion shall require." And it declares 
that no man may take to himself these offices, but limits 
them to those who are regularly called by the Christian 
people and ordained by the presbytery. A notable 
instance of loyalty to this principle occurred in Scotland 
in the years following the Revolution of 1688. Those of 
the Society People, or Covenanters, who did not feel free 
to join the Established Church were left pastorless by the 
return to that communion of all their surviving ministers. 
They went on in this condition, "edifying one another " 
in their societies, until the accession of Rev. John Mac- 
millan in 1706; and he did not undertake to constitute 
a presbytery, or to ordain any ministers, until the acces- 
sion of another ordained minister made this possible in 
what he thought an orderly way. 



Modern Anglicanism 269 

The Anglican theory of Succession, which is nowhere 
taught by the Church of England, begins with the as- 
sumption that the office of diocesan bishop dates back 
to the days of the Apostles, that it is one thing with the 
office of bishop in those urban churches of the Roman 
Empire, that it has duties higher in their nature and 
utility than the cure of souls, that it has been transmitted 
by an unbroken series of manual consecrations of men to 
this distinct office from the days of the Apostles to our 
own, and that submission to its rule is a part of loyalty 
to our divine Master, if not essential to our spiritual life. 
It elevates consecration and ordination to the level of a 
sacrament, teaching that with the laying on of hands of the 
bishops or bishop, a grace of sanctification is bestowed 
on the bishop or presbyter, as in baptism a grace of re- 
generation is conferred on the recipient of that ordinance. 
It teaches that the bishop and the priest ordained by him 
have exclusive power to administer valid sacraments, so 
that the recipients of these have a right to claim from God 
the conveyance of spiritual life. Thus the succession of 
bishops furnishes "less a channel of truth, than a channel 
of the means of grace" (Dr. Jelf). 

Dr. Charles Gore, now the Bishop of Birmingham, is 
the latest exponent of the theory, and his work on The 
Church and the Ministry is another in the series of the at- 
tempts by himself and his friends to fuse with the High 
Church principles of Pusey and Keble those of Frederick 
Maurice and the earlier (positive) Broad Church teachers. 
His most general statement of the idea of Apostolic Suc- 
cession is this: 1 

The religion of Christ . . . is a religion which in its 
principles and essence is final — which contains in itself all the 

1 The Church and the Ministry. Sixth Impression. (London and New York: 
1907.) Pp. 58-59; 63-64. In the earlier editions instead of speaking of "the 
fullness of the Spirit's presence and operation once for all granted to the Church," 
Dr. Gore wrote "the fullness of the once for all given grace." 



270 The Historic Episcopate 

forces which the future will need; so that there is nothing to 
be looked for in the department of religion beyond or outside 
it, while there is everything to be looked for from within. This 
essential finality is expressed in the once for all delivered 
faith, in the fullness of the Spirit's presence and operation 
once for all granted to the Church, in the visible society once 
for all instituted; and it is at least a tenable proposition that it 
should have been expressed in a once for all empowered ministry. 

Let it be supposed that Christ, in founding hi3 Church, 
founded also a ministry in the Church in the persons of hia 
Apostles. These Apostles must be supposed to have had a 
temporary function in their capacity as founders under Christ. 
In this capacity they held an office by its very nature not per- 
petual — the office of bearing the original witness to Christ's 
resurrection and making the original proclamation of the gos- 
pel. But underlying this was another — a pastorate of souls, a 
stewardship of divine mysteries. This office, instituted in 
their persons, was intended to become perpetual, and that by 
being transmitted from its first depositaries. It was thus in- 
tended that there should be in every Church, in each genera- 
tion, an authoritative stewardship of the grace and truth which 
came by Jesus Christ, and a recognized power to transmit it, 
derived from above by apostolic descent. The men who from 
time to time were to hold the various offices involved in the 
ministry and the transmitting power necessary for its continu- 
ance might, indeed, fitly be elected by those to whom they were 
to minister. In this way the ministry would express the rep- 
resentative principle. But their authority to minister in 
whatever capacity, their qualifying consecration, was to come 
from above, in such sense that no ministerial act could be 
regarded as valid — that is, as having the security of the divine 
covenant about it — unless it was performed under the shelter 
of a commission, received by the transmission of the original 
pastoral authority which had been delegated by Christ him- 
self to his Apostles. This is what is understood by the Apos- 
tolic Succession of the ministry. 

[The bishops] are the guardians no doubt of the grace by 
which Christians live, of which, as much as of the truth, the 
Church is the rich treasury — Depositorium dives (Ireneus). 

Throughout this statement we have a subtle blending 
of truth accepted by all, with the suggestion of question- 
able principles, and that "free use of unproved assump- 
tions" which Dr. Hatch charged upon its author. It will 
be observed that he says nothing of episcopacy in this 
general statement, and elsewhere he declares that: "It 
is a matter of very great importance to exalt the principle 



Modern Anglicanism 271 

of the Apostolic Succession above the question of the exact 
form of the ministry, in which the principle has expressed 
itself." But the greater part of his book is taken up with 
an attempt to prove that the "threefold ministry" is of 
apostolic origin, and much of it to overcoming the objec- 
tions to that view which are found in the early documents 
of Church history. Some of his solutions of palpable 
difficulties are deserving of praise for their ingenuity. 
Thus while trying to break down the threefold testimony 
of Jerome, Ambrosiaster and Eutychius as to the ordina- 
tion by presbyters in the church of Alexandria, he pro- 
ceeds to show that even if all that were true, it would not 
matter : 

[The Alexandrian presbyters] were ordained, ex hypothesi, 
on the understanding that under certain circumstances they 
might be called, by simple election, to execute the bishop's 
office. They were not only presbyters with the ordinary com- 
mission of the presbyter, but also bishops in posse. Else- 
where there were two distinct ordinations, one making a 
man a bishop and another a presbyter; at Alexandria there 
was only one ordination, which made a man a presbyter and 
potential bishop. 

All this being so clear and satisfactory, it is surprising 
that he and other champions of the threefold ministry 
have spent so much paper and ink in trying to get rid of 
facts which they say do not really tell against their hy- 
pothesis. Nor is the usefulness of this piece of ingenuity 
limited to the case of Alexandria. It serves equally well 
for the case of the Roman presbyters as described by 
Hermas, for the Corinthian as described by Clement, for 
those of Philippi as described by Polycarp, and so on to 
the end of the chapter. In the face of such a solvent it 
would be useless to heap up a hundred testimonies to the 
government of churches in the sub-Apostolic age by a 
plurality of presbyters. They would be found to be 
"potential bishops," and no obstacle to the theory of 



272 The Historic Episcopate 

a threefold ministry. So, indeed, Monsignor Duchesne, 
who seems to have originated the explanation, uses it to 
convert the troublesome presbyteries, found ruling sundry 
churches, into a " collegiate episcopate," on its way to 
an orderly resolution into a monarchic episcopate by in- 
evitable law. Dr. Gore adopts from Prof. H. V. Stanton 
this theory of an inevitable growth into monarchic episco- 
pate, which was suggested also by Dr. Newman. Prof. 
Stanton says: 

It was by a common instinct that this organization was 
everywhere adopted. It was, as it were, a law of the being of 
the Church, that it should put on this form, which worked as 
surely as the growth of a particular kind of plant from a par- 
ticular kind of seed. Everywhere there was a development 
which made unerringly for the same goal. This seems to speak 
of divine institution almost as plainly as if our Lord had in 
so many words prescribed this form of Church government. 
He, the Founder of the Church, would seem to have impressed 
upon it this nature. 

This would have more force if it were not true that our 
Lord seems to have taken great pains to warn his Church 
against just such a development, as a natural tendency 
not to be accepted but resisted. And it would have still 
more force for Presbyterians and other Protestants if it 
were shown just where this natural tendency to the con- 
centration of authority in a single person ceases to be 
legitimate. The elevation of the monarchic bishop above 
the rest of the presbyter-bishops of the early Church is a 
part of a great process, which reaches its culmination in 
the elevation of the Bishop of Rome to the position of 
monarch of the universal Church. Did our Lord im- 
press upon his Church such a nature as results in the ac- 
ceptance of a vicar of Christ as the head of Christendom? 

Indeed, as Dean Lefroy has ably shown, 1 the episcopate 
described by Dr. Gore calls for a papacy to protect the 

1 The Christian Ministry: Its Origin, Constitution, Nature, and Work. A 
Contribution to Pastoral Theology. (London and New York.) Pp. 346-355. 



Modern A nglica n ism 273 

Church against the schismatic tendencies of such an in- 
stitution: 

This succession is individual. It is not corporate. It is 
theoretically independent of the voice of the Church. . . . 
Such a succession — personal, charismatic, derivative — is schis- 
matical in its tendency. Such a danger is guarded against in 
the Roman Catholic Church by the union of all the members 
of that body with its head, the Pope of Rome; but no such 
safeguard exists amongst those who, in the Anglican Church, 
advocate this charismatic claim. It connects a series of other- 
wise unconnected individuals. The bond of connection is 
consecration to the episcopal office. Each individual receives 
his apostolic commission from his predecessor, as he did from 
his. The gift comes from hand to hand. ... It takes 
its rise, originally and exclusively, in individual life. It is the 
possession of an individual authority. It is transmitted by 
individual power. It is, as such, independent of the society, 
even though Christ instituted it. 

It ignores the powers of the society. It takes no notice 
whatever of its natural rights as a society. It takes as little 
notice of its divine rights, which are implied in the perpetual 
presence of Christ. A number of individuals may be elected 
to office, by which "the representative principle" is recog- 
nized. The authority by which they act is from a source 
which is absolutely independent of the existing society. If it 
is exercised unduly, the society has no power to restrain it. 
If it be relaxed irregularly, the society has no power to in- 
vigorate it. The successor of the Apostles, possessed of pre- 
rogatives which are personal and private, may ordain whom he 
pleases. He can give the authority to his nominee. The 
faithful may not need the exercise of the authority. They may 
even chafe under the existing rule. They have no power to 
restrain the individual, who is disconnected from them, and 
who derives his authority from a series of persons, every one 
of whom ruled in absolute independence of the natural rights 
which belong to any society, and in equal independence of the 
spiritual rights belonging to the divine society. 

That this peril really exists is shown by the history of 
the Anglican Church itself. The Nonjuring schism of 
the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries derived its 
vitality from the leadership of a number of bishops and 
an Apostolical Succession, animated far more by political 
antagonism to the reigning house than by any religious 
motive whatever. In England it lasted as a school of 
warring ecclesiastics, after it had ceased to command the 
18 



274 The Historic Episcopate 

fealty of any considerable body of the laity. It split 
the disestablished Episcopalian Church of Scotland into 
two antagonistic parties, by insisting that vacancies in 
the episcopate must be filled by a nomination from the 
Pretender. It even sought to perpetuate itself in America, 
first — it is alleged, though on grounds somewhat uncertain 
— by consecrating Rev. John Talbot of Burlington as 
bishop for the colonies in 1722; and then by consecrating 
Dr. Samuel Seabury as Bishop of Connecticut on the mere 
verbal request of a number of presbyters in that state, 
and negotiating with him a concordat which involved the 
maintenance of communion between that see and the Non- 
juror Church in Scotland. 

Another schism, in another direction, has occurred in 
our own times in America. Bishop George David Cum- 
mins, the Assistant-Bishop of Kentucky, becoming dis- 
satisfied with the sacramental teaching of the Prayer 
Book of the Protestant Episcopal Church, withdrew from 
its communion November 19, 1873, and, with the support 
of seven of its presbyters and a considerable body of 
laymen, took steps to organize a Reformed Episcopal 
Church. Six months later he was "deposed" from office 
by the senior bishop and others of the Protestant Episcopal 
Church. But in the meantime he had consecrated Dr. 
Charles Edward Cheney to the office of bishop, thus 
furnishing the new communion with a regular episcopate, 
whatever was the validity or invalidity of the subsequent 
act of " deposition.' ' Bishop Cummins was "a live wire" 
at the date of that consecration; and while ordinarily, 
since the Council of Nicea, three bishops are required to 
consecrate, no Anglican authority disputes the validity 
of the consecration in 1723 of the Jansenist Archbishop of 
Utrecht by Bishop Varlet, who had been " deposed" for 
Jansenism; or that of the Old-Catholic Bishop Reinkens 



Modern A nglicanism 275 

by the Jansenist Bishop Heykamp of Deventer in 1873. 
For the Succession theory, by isolating the episcopal 
order from the Church, making it a divine gift to the 
individual bishop "from above," puts it into the power 
of any recipient of this gift to act with entire indepen- 
dence of the Church within which he received his con- 
secration. 

The side of the Apostolic office, which Dr. Gore de- 
clares was meant to be perpetual, he defines as "a pastor- 
ate of souls, a stewardship of divine mysteries." From 
the construction of this sentence it may be assumed that 
he means the latter phrase as synonymous with the former, 1 
which is certainly the clearer of the two. Is there any 
description of ministerial service more exalted than this 
of the " pastorate of souls?" And is there any more alien 
to the work of a diocesan bishop than this? What kind 
of pastor of souls is Dr. Charles Gore to the diocese of 
Birmingham? I can claim blood relationship to some of 
his flock, but I should have been much surprised if I had 
heard them, in our free and familiar talk, which included 
their position as "Church people," claim any acquaintance 
with him as their bishop, or speak of having seen his face, 
unless it were in the chancel of a church on occasion 
of a confirmation. How much sleep has he lost (He- 
brews xiii: 17) in his anxiety for their spiritual welfare, 
and by what process of ecclesiastical magic could he multi- 
ply himself among the people of that great community, 

1 The words with which the fourth chapter of 1 Corinthians begin have been 
separated most unhappily from those at the close of the third chapter, and thus 
have been made useful to the promoters of extravagant claims for the Christian 
ministry. "Wherefore," says the Apostle, "let no one glory in men. For all 
things are yours; whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or 
death, or things present, or things to come; all are yours; and ye are Christ's; 
and Christ is God's. Let a man so account of us, as of the servants of Christ, the 
stewards of the mysteries of God. Here, moreover, it is required in stewards, that 
a man be found faithful." It is the Church, not the ministry, not even the apos- 
tolate, that Paul makes much of here; and he includes Apollos, no less than Peter 
and himself, among the stewards of the mysteries, so that that title, in itself 
essentially an humble one, is not descriptive of the apostolate as distinguished 
from other offices in the Church. 



276 The Historic Episcopate 

so as to exercise the "cure of souls" over them? What 
would his flock say if they were told by an inspired prophet, 
"Do nothing without your bishop!" or were required by 
the same authority to consult him before entering on an 
engagement to marry? What does he know of the quar- 
rels on the back streets of Birmingham, as Mr. Ruskin 
thinks he ought to know? I would not write thus if there 
were anything about his position and his discharge of its 
duties which was peculiar and personal to this devout, 
earnest and learned bishop. It is equally true of the whole 
Anglican episcopate in both the mother Church of Eng- 
land and all its branches. Direct, personal labor for the 
winning and upbuilding of souls was apostolic work. 
Direct, personal labor for the winning and upbuilding of 
souls is exactly what the Anglican bishop has to be ex- 
cused from undertaking, and that to an extent which is 
not true even of the bishops of the Greek and the Latin 
communions. Diocesanism has attained its worst de- 
velopment here. 

This, as Coleridge points out, was the main objection of 
the Thoughtful Puritans to the prelatic system of the 
Church of England in their efforts to secure a farther 
reformation: "It was prelacy, not primitive episcopacy, 
the thing, not the name, that the Reformers contended 
against. . . . Knox's ecclesiastical policy (worthy 
of Lycurgus) adopted bishops under a different name, or 
rather under a translation instead of corruption of the 
name episcopoi. He would have had superintendents." 
Richard Baxter's ideal, Mr. Hunt says, "was a bishop in 
every city, with the clergy of the district and the country 
churches under him. Twenty-six bishops all over Eng- 
land seemed to him an Episcopacy in name, without the 
reality. The parishes at that time were 9725 in number. 
In Lincoln diocese, in which Baxter then lived, there were 



Modern Anglicanism 277 

nearly 1100 churches. The diocese was 120 miles in 
length. Some other dioceses were equally large. London 
had parishes with populations from 20,000 to 50,000. It 
was impossible, Baxter said, for any man to do the work 
of a bishop among such vast populations, or over so wide 
a district of country. Yet not one of the six and twenty 
bishops had so much as a suffragan. Neither Scripture, 
the example of the early Church, nor the requirements 
of the Church of England, authorized such an Episcopacy 
as this." 

Although the population of England went on increasing, 
sometimes by leaps and bounds, it was not until 1848 that 
Manchester was added; St. Albans and Truro in 1877; 
Liverpool in 1880; Newcastle in 1882; Southwell in 1884; 
Wakefield in 1888; Birmingham and Southwark in 1905. 
Some dozen colonial bishops are resident in England, act- 
ing as assistant bishops. And there are twenty suffragan 
bishops in the province of Canterbury, and eight in that 
of York. In all, there are seventy-seven bishops for the 
thirty millions of the English and Welsh people, or one to 
each four hundred thousand of the population. There 
are three cities with over one hundred thousand; fifteen 
with over fifty thousand; thirteen with over forty thou- 
sand; eight with over thirty thousand; twenty with over 
twenty thousand; and thirty-six with over ten thousand 
people, which are not episcopal sees, while twelve places 
of less than ten thousand population are episcopal cities, 
and thirteen are the homes of suffragan bishops. But 
even the addition of those ninety-five English cities to 
the list of episcopal sees would not effect any such exten- 
sion of the episcopal order as would bring England and 
W T ales into line with the churches of Syria, Asia, Greece, 
Italy and Africa in the age of Augustine of Hippo. 

The American branch of the Anglican Church aban- 



278 The Historic Episcopate 

doned the very idea of the urban constitution of the epis- 
copate, while the American branch of the Roman Church 
has followed it pretty closely. In Colonial times the 
thirteen colonies were attached to the diocese of London. 
When American independence removed the obstacles to 
an American episcopate, the dioceses were conformed to 
the boundaries of the states. Down to 1839, when New 
York was divided, no bishop had less than a whole state 
for his diocese. Since that time twenty-three states 
have been divided by the erection of thirty-six additional 
dioceses, while twenty-five states and three territories 
remain undivided. This gives a total of eighty-two 
bishops, or one to each ten thousand communicants, and 
less than one to each million of the population. Eighteen 
dioceses take their names from cities; but these are no 
more urban in fact than are the others. 

Very few of these dioceses have any right to be called 
episcopal sees, as the bishops generally have no churches 
of their own in which to set up their cathedras, and in 
which they ordinarily are to be found on the Lord's day, 
dispensing the word and sacraments to their people. 
After more than a century, such a church is in course of 
erection for the Bishop of New York; and the seventh 
bishop of that diocese has died, like Moses, in sight of 
such a resting place, but without entering it. 

Very few American Episcopalians seem to be aware of 
the absurdity of such a system claiming apostolic or even 
early patristic authority for its existence. They start 
from the highly artificial episcopate of Great Britain, as 
that to which the Anglican communion stands committed; 
and they go on to outdo its unhistoric absurdity in the 
creation of still vaster dioceses on the scale of American 
dimensions. Bishop Whittingham of Maryland, although 
the graduate of no college or university, was justly es- 



Modern Anglicanism 279 

teemed as the most learned of the American bishops of his 
time. In 1863 he wrote to Bishop Alonzo Potter of Penn- 
sylvania, with reference to the proposal to divide the 
diocese of Maryland: "I am thoroughly satisfied that to 
live and grow at all in this country, our Church must 
greatly diminish the size, and therefore multiply the 
number, of her dioceses; and I firmly believe that the 
adoption of the primitive standard of diocesan limits, by 
which, in ordinary circumstances, a bishop should be 
placed wherever a county court is held (the center of 
ecclesiastical and civil jurisdiction being made the same), 
would, by depriving Presbyterian episcopacy of its one 
element of truth, bring back multitudes of the followers of 
parity into the fold of the Church. We need it as much 
for the restoration of the true pastoral office (both as exer- 
cised by presbyters and as overseen by bishops) as we do 
for the prosecution of the missionary trust. Neither can 
the Church have any genuine efficacy, until she have her 
country bishops, as well as city bishops; and the latter 
only with an average of more than from thirty to fifty 
congregations." 

Rev. Jubal Hodges, in his defence of the claims of the 
Apostolate of the Catholic Apostolic Church, 1 writes: 
" There were no bishops in the days of the Apostles, 
ruling over hundreds of churches, as in the Anglican and 
American dioceses. . . . The angels, elders and dea- 
cons of St. John's and St. Ignatius' times, cannot easily be 
recognized in the traveling bishop of our vast states; 
in presbyters who do not surround him as helps, the corona 
presbyterorum, whose seats or thrones were around his 
in the early cathedral churches, but are now virtually 
his substitutes seeing his face but once a year; and in 

1 The Original Constitution of the Church and its Restoration. By a Presbyter 
of the Diocese of Pennsylvania. London: 1864. 



280 The Historic Episcopate 

deacons not chosen of the people, and standing as their 
representatives and guardians in each several flock, but 
transformed into a lower order, as it were, of the priest- 
hood. . . . The true and perfect order of the worship 
of God .... requires the continual presence of 
the angel at his own altar, daily to offer intercession as the 
representative of Christ, the angel of the Covenant, and 
of the whole Church, in heaven; and it has deprived the 
people over whom the Holy Ghost has made him chief 
pastor, of the blessing which should flow from his constant 
presence among them, and spiritual oversight." This 
has an Ignatian and Cyprianic sound. 1 

It is in the light of this truth of the pastorate being the 
highest of human services to the kingdom of Christ, that 
one must find a grave defect in this Anglican teaching in 
laying stress on an external and official fitness for the 
ministry, as outweighing personal and spiritual fitness. 
"The grace of the ministry" is not thought of as a gra- 
ciousness of character, the outgrowth of a divine dis- 
cipline of the man, but as the result of a ceremony, in 
which the minister has received an authority and a power, 
to which other men, who have not received this ordination, 
are strangers. It thus puts a bad priest above a good 
man, who has not received his priesthood at the proper 
hands, and severs the idea of spiritual efficiency from 
character. Even Jeremy Taylor was staggered by this 
teaching, and wrote: 

Although it be true that the efficacy of the sacraments does 
not depend wholly upon the worthiness of him that minis- 
ters, yet it is as true that it does net depend wholly upon 
the goodness of the receiver; but both together, relying upon 
the goodness of God, produce all those blessings which are 

1 In a sermon preached in 1868 or 1869 before the Diocesan Convention of 
Pennsylvania, the preacher — Dr. Hoffman of Saint Mark's, if I mistake not — 
expressed a wish for the return of the time when "the parish and the diocese 
were coterminous," and the presbyter had not thrust himself into the work 
of the bishop. 



Modern Anglicanism 281 

designed. The minister hath an influence unto the effect, and 
does very much toward it. 

Much is the loss when a wicked priest ministers. 

Against this statement High Churchmen have protested, 
appealing to the saying of the Apostle, "We have this 
treasure in earthen vessels, that the exceeding greatness of 
the power may be of God, and not from ourselves." But 
an "earthen vessel" is not necessarily a dirty vessel; and 
the Apostle is not speaking of wicked men under this simile, 
but of imperfect and fallible men, such as are the best of 
Christ's servants. To suppose that episcopal ordination 
can make a bad man an efficient minister of the new cove- 
nant, is to forget what is involved in the pastoral labors of 
such a minister. It is not administration of the sacra- 
ments, nor even the formal and public preaching of the 
word, which is alone at stake here. It is the pressure of 
his life and his influence upon the lives of his flock, in per- 
sonal intercourse, which counts. He must feed them, as 
Bernard says, with his word and his life (verbo et vita). 
And even the ministry of the word cannot be efficient ordi- 
narily or fully, except as it is through a consecrated man. 
The preacher must speak out of his own experience to 
reach the hearts of men. He must himself have the vision 
of divine realities, before he can bring his hearers to see 
them. Otherwise he is one of the blind leaders of the 
blind, of whose unsuccess our Lord leaves us in no doubt. 
And his solemn words as to the hirelings, who might in- 
trude into the shepherd's work without having the shep- 
herd's spirit, certainly bind together the pastoral work and 
spiritual fitness in all who undertake it. "The ruin of 
the Church," said one of the popes, "is when the people 
are better than their priests." 

Turning from the minister to the people, what are we 
entitled to expect of those who enjoy the services of the 



282 The Historic Episcopate 

only valid ministry in the Church of Christ, as denned 
by this hypothesis of the Apostolic Succession? In what 
contrast must they stand to those who are cut off by 
" schism" from the channels in which alone flows "the 
grace by which Christians live," and who deny themselves 
access to those "valid sacraments," by which the spiritual 
life of men is begun and nourished? "Upon a true epis- 
copal succession," says Dr. Liddon, "depends the validity 
of the Eucharist — one chief means of communion with our 
Lord." "That which in our belief and to our sorrow, 
the non-episcopal communities lack, is participation in 
those privileges, which depend upon a ministry duly 
authorized by Christ our Lord, and in particular the pre- 
cious sacrament of his Body and Blood." 1 What fullness 
and purity of spiritual life, then, what warmth of love, 
what abounding in faith, what readiness for sacrifices, 
what zeal for the kingdom, what severance from the world, 
what hopefulness and confidence in the gospel, should 
they exhibit, who are so favored, in contrast to the lack 
of these fruits in others who bear the Christian name, but 
are not rightly rooted in the system for transmission of 
"the grace given once for all to the Church!" "By their 
fruits ye shall know them. Do men gather grapes of 
thorns or figs of thistles?" It is our Lord's own test; and 
if this hypothesis of the Apostolic Succession of monarchic 
bishops be the appointed method for conveying grace to 
men, there should be palpable and unmistakable evidence 

1 "A Father in Christ," a sermon preached in St. Paul's Cathedral at the 
consecration of two bishops. To Dr. A. K. H. Boyd of St. Andrews Dr. Liddon 
wrote: "Here in England the Episcopate forms a real barrier to union among 
Reformed Christians: all the Protestant bodies, which are loyal to the Puritan 
tradition, regard it with hereditary aversion. If it is not necessary it ought to 
be abolished in deference to the prejudices of millions of weak brethren: and I 
may add, in order to diminish the temptation to ambition and worldliness among 
ourselves. To this danger those of our clergy who have no real belief in Apos- 
tolical Succession and who consequently see in the Episcopate a mere earthly 
prize of professional success, — such and such an income, and a seat in the House 
of Lords, — are especially exposed. If I believed the Episcopate to be a matter 
of human institution, I should earnestly desire its abolition" {Twenty-Five 
Years of St. Andrew's, ii, 226-227). 



Modern Anglicanism 283 

of this fact in the superiority of those who share in its 
benefits. 

Far be it from us to disparage the graces and worthiness 
of the men and women whose lives adorn the annals of the 
Anglican churches! The thought calls up names of the 
immediate past, which shine in the Church's firmament 
as stars bright with the undying Light of the central Sun. 
But almost every name suggests a parallel name among 
the Protestants of the Continent, or the Free Churchmen 
of England or the Presbyterians of Scotland and Ireland. 
The century we have seen to its close was the richest in 
martyrs of any in the Church's history. What com- 
munion had the monopoly of these? It was the richest 
also, I believe, in real saints; but none dare draw the line 
across which no saintship is to be recognized, or even is 
less abundant than on the hither side, and say, "Here 
ends the porphyry; here begins the flint." The broad 
facts of the spiritual history of recent times discredit the 
claim that one communion has an especial claim to be 
regarded as the nursery of sanctity or the field of service. 

Nor does the Anglican Church put forward any such 
claim for herself. As Dean Lefroy shows, 1 neither her 
Articles, nor her Book of Common Prayer, nor her Homi- 
lies, nor her Canons know anything of this exalted privi- 
lege, which sunders her from the other Reformed Churches. 
She claims to be "a true and apostolical Church," but she 
follows the earlier Fathers in making this depend upon the 
purity of her doctrine, and not her inheritance of offices 
and forms. She regards episcopacy as a venerable form 
of Church government, with apostolic sanction; but she 
says not a word of its being indispensable to the being or 
even the well-being of a church. The Church of Rome 
and the Orthodox Church of the East leave nobody in 

1 The Christian Ministry, pp. 325-339. 



284 The Historic Episcopate 

doubt as to the character and extent of their claims upon 
the adherence of "all who profess and call themselves 
Christians"; but the Anglican Church is culpably silent, 
if her foremost champions have gauged correctly the 
measure of her demands upon the rest of Protestant 
Christendom. " Apostolical Succession, its necessity and 
its grace, is not an Anglican tradition," writes John Henry 
Newman, who spent ten years in trying to prove that it 
was, and then withdrew to the Church of Rome. 

But the most objectionable feature of the hypothesis 
is that on which Dean Lefroy touches, when he says that 
it ignores the divine rights of the Church, " which are 
implied in the perpetual Presence of Christ." It is another 
form of that conception of the Church as widowed by the 
withdrawal of her Divine Spouse, and thus left to the sole 
protection of her officers, which we found in the teaching 
of the Cyprianic age. That is the common mark of all 
forms of hierarchical Christianity — the ecclesiastic has 
grown to his high importance because the Head of the 
Church has gone off to an infinite distance, and the official 
is his only representative left to mankind. "My sheep 
hear my voice." "I am with you always, even unto the 
end of the world." This is the real presence, which we 
must oppose to the theory of a real absence, of the divine 
and human Head of the Church and of every man in its 
communion. If we lose this, we shall not find rest in the 
local bishop of any part of the Church, but in some uni- 
versal bishop, whom we shall strive to raise to superhuman 
rank, asserting his infallibility today, and his sinlessness 
tomorrow, that he may be fitted to fill the place of the 
absent Saviour. 



CHAPTER XI 
Outlook 

To the Protestant Episcopal Church of America belongs 
the credit of having suggested the movement towards the 
restoration of Christian unity, which has found acceptance 
with the Anglican communions generally, on the basis of 
friendly conference with other Protestant bodies, and 
through an appeal to their Christian feeling in the matter. 

The American branch of the Anglican Church was 
afTected very early and strongly by the Oxford Movement. 
The Tracts for the Times, Dr. Newman's Sermons, and 
other important works of its literature were reprinted in 
America, and were read eagerly by the younger clergy 
especially. Thus arose an Anglo-Catholic party within 
the Church, which alternately gratified the old-fashioned 
High Churchmen by its zeal for liturgic worship and for 
episcopacy, and puzzled them by its equal readiness to 
sign the Thirty-nine Articles or the Tridentine Decrees. 

Like their brethren of the same party in England, 
these Anglo-Catholics were embarrassed by some out- 
standing facts in the history of their own Church, such as 
the far too comprehensive language of Bishop White's 
Preface to the American Book of Common Prayer, and 
the repeated recognition of the validity of ministries not 
conferred by episcopal hands. Worst of all, however, 
was the name adopted by their Church on becoming inde- 
pendent of the Church of England. To Dr. White and 
his associates it seemed the exact designation of their 

285 



286 The Historic Episcopate 

communion, as that Protestant Church which practised 
government by bishops. But to the Oxford school the 
very name of Protestant was Nehushtan — an abomina- 
tion. Although their " royal martyr" always had de- 
clared himself a Protestant; although Dr. Laud on the 
scaffold had said, "I die in the Protestant Church of 
England"; and although the term had been used by 
Anglicans in the seventeenth century to distinguish them- 
selves from Nonconformists, yet the word was now an 
offence. That the Anglican Church was not Protestant, 
and had nothing to do with Protestants, — that she was 
"Catholic" throughout, in her Liturgy, her Articles, her 
government, — and that whatever sounded otherwise, as 
some of the Articles did, was to be " taken in a Catholic 
sense," was a principle with the Oxford school. With 
Hurrell Froude, they did " every day more and more hate 
the Reformers," while using their words in devotion, and 
subscribing to their doctrinal statements in the Articles. 

For a time it was supposed that the new presentation of 
the " Catholic" theory of the Church would exercise at- 
traction upon the less favored churches of America, and 
that this Aaron's rod would swallow up all the others. 
The "sects" were ignored, but their individual members 
were addressed as professing Christians, who were fore- 
going the best part of a Christian's birthright through 
their isolation from an authorized ministry and valid 
sacraments. This hope has been disappointed for those 
who entertained it, and the action of the bishops in 1880 
was accepted by all parties as a reasonable approach 
towards Christian unity. In the Declaration of that year 
it is said "that this Church does not seek to absorb other 
communions, but rather, cooperating with them on the 
basis of a common faith and order, to discountenance 
schism, to heal the wounds of the body of Christ, and to 



Outlook 287 

promote the charity which is the chief of Christian graces 
and the visible manifestation of Christ to the world/' 
It is hard to believe that no finer result will come from so 
auspicious a beginning than we have yet seen. Perhaps 
this is a grain of that wheat which must fall into the ground 
and die, else it will bring forth no fruit. 

It is manifest that a sense of the evils which attend 
the divided condition of modern Christendom has been 
awakened in the churches, and that it is deepening. Much 
of this is due to the interest in foreign missions, which 
began to stir the American churches at the beginning of 
the nineteenth century. They were drawn out of a 
selfish and sectarian regard for their welfare as separate 
and contending bodies, and into a feeling for the good 
estate of the whole cause of the Master. They became 
gradually aware of the ugliness with which sectarian divi- 
sions are seen on the mission field, where the converts to 
Christ are puzzled themselves and puzzling their teachers 
as to the necessity of their adhesion to some system of 
faith and practice, which bears the stamp of its origina- 
tion under circumstances widely different from those of 
the mission field. The brighter side of the story works to 
the same end. The heroic sacrifices for Christ's cause 
by great missionaries of various churches have awakened 
a sympathy and an admiration which ignore the bounds 
of sect and party, and make all Christendom feel its 
kinship on deeper lines of unity than those of rite and 
doctrine. The great bede roll of the Church's heroes 
and martyrs is felt to be a common possession, and the 
myriads of converts are accepted as a common gain for 
all Christians. 

The field of home missions has often been the scene of 
an intense sectarianism, and it is still our reproach through 
the waste of money in maintaining several feeble churches 



288 The Historic Episcopate 

of different names in a community where but one really- 
strong church is possible. This has led to some agree- 
ments to leave the field to whichever of the contracting 
churches is the first to enter it, until the growth of popula- 
tion warrants the representation of both. Such arrange- 
ments suggest an extension of the method of mutual 
recognition by our churches, extending at last to a sort 
of federal system not unlike that under which we as a 
nation enjoy both local liberty and national order. 

The divisions of our Protestant Christendom have been 
used by an overruling Wisdom to develop various types 
of Christian character, thought and organization, each 
of which may be found necessary to the completeness of 
the whole body in the day of their unity. The absorption 
of all these into any one of our present churches, to the 
effacement of all peculiarities but its own, would mean the 
loss of a century of history, and the impoverishment of 
our religious life for the sake of a dead uniformity. " We 
must set before us," says the Lambeth Conference of 
1908, "the Church of Christ as he would have it, one 
Spirit and one body, enriched with all those elements of 
divine truth which the separate communities of Christians 
now emphasize severally, strengthened by the interaction 
of all the gifts and graces which our divisions now hold 
asunder, filled with all the fullness of God. We dare not 
in the name of peace barter away those precious things of 
which we have been made stewards. Neither can we 
wish others to be unfaithful to trusts which they hold no 
less sacred. We must fix our eyes on the Church of the 
future, which is to be adorned with all the precious things, 
both theirs and ours. We must constantly desire not 
compromise but comprehension, not uniformity but unity." 

Yet the maintenance of all these in separate and iso- 
lated bodies, with no covenant of brotherhood to embrace 



Outlook 289 

them all, is contrary to the common spirit of fraternal 
love, which grows in power among them all. We stand 
to-day very much where the Constitutional Convention 
of 1787 stood at the opening of its sessions, with one party 
calling for a single centralized government like that of 
England, and the other clamoring for the continuance of 
that state of things which had been already established, 
and under which the states were falling into prolonged 
and bitter strife. Is it not possible to reach a solution for 
our religious life, broadly corresponding to that Constitu- 
tion, which grew out of the patriotism of men who laid 
aside party feelings for the good of the nation, and which 
has served us so grandly during the years since its adop- 
tion? 

The Protestant Episcopal Church must be said to have 
abandoned the lead it took thirty years ago in this matter. 
I say this not only in view of the cessation of the nego- 
tiations with our own Church, of which I have spoken in 
the Introduction to this book, but still more in view of the 
proceedings of the last Lambeth Conference of the bishops 
of the Anglican communion. The Archbishop of Mel- 
bourne came to that conference with an olive branch 
from the Presbyterian Church of Australia, but received 
not the slightest encouragement to proceed. Every- 
thing that was done in the direction of Church unity was 
dominated by the idea of the Apostolical Succession of 
bishops. 

Proposals, indeed, for union and intercommunion with 
the Moravian Church were held out, and were laid before 
its General Synod meeting the next year at Herrnhut. 
A similar but unauthorized suggestion was made to the 
Lutheran Church of Sweden. But in both these cases the 
suggestion was for the assimilation of their episcopate 
to that of the Church of England, through the removal 
19 



290 The Historic Episcopate 

of any defect in their present succession of bishops, in- 
volving "the introduction of another line of ordination" 
than that now possessed, and with this inevitably a dis- 
crimination between the standing of one part of their clergy 
and that of another. On the other hand, there was a 
strong expression of desire at the Lambeth Conference 
for communion with the Syrian, Armenian and other 
Oriental Churches, none of whom show the smallest 
purpose to reciprocate. Thus the Anglican Church stands 
ready to practice communion with the Latin, Greek and 
Oriental Churches, which will have none of her, and will 
not even acknowledge the validity of her orders, much less 
the orthodoxy of her Articles, while she turns away from 
the Churches of her own speech and neighborhood, or 
treats their advances as to be entertained only when they 
have accepted her ecclesiastical system. 

The only suggestion as to these latter is that the An- 
glican clergy should cultivate kindly personal relations 
with their ministry, as Dr. Sancroft suggested two centu- 
ries ago. But it is said that "it might be possible to make 
an approach to reunion on the basis of consecrations to 
the episcopate on lines suggested by such precedents as 
those of 1610." For Presbyterians this was an unhappy 
suggestion, as "the precedent of 1610" was a chapter in 
the insolent encroachment of the Stuart kings upon the 
laws and rights of the Church of Scotland, and was set 
aside with emphasis by the Scottish Parliament and As- 
sembly when they attained the control of the affairs of 
the realm by the uprising of 1637. It is only less offensive 
than "the precedent" of 1661, when Robert Leighton was 
required to submit to a ceremony which implied that his 
ministrations in the Church of Scotland had been irregular 
and invalid through those years in which he had been 
enriching our sacred literature with his matchless works of 



Outlook 291 

devotion and exposition. For, as his Anglican editor, 
Rev. William West, says, his writings, "with scarcely an 
exception, belonged to the Presbyterian period of his 
life." 

The cause of Christian unity, therefore, so far as the 
Anglican Church is concerned, has not advanced in any 
appreciable degree since 1880, and the reason for this is 
found in the assumption of the divine right of the "his- 
toric episcopate," and the hypothesis of an Apostolical 
Succession of manually consecrated bishops as the neces- 
sary channel of grace in the Christian Church. Both these 
are without warrant in either the Christian Scriptures, 
or the earlier monuments of Christian antiquity. The 
former is an institution evolved in the second Christian 
century, without either apostolic sanction or necessity 
in the life of the Church, and is no more a part of the 
Christian Church order than is the papacy, its child and 
heir. The latter is a conception first originated by 
Cyprian of Carthage, and elaborated from age to age by 
the later fathers, the Romanist canonists since 1570, 
and the Anglican polemics since 1589. Are these to re- 
main the permanent obstacle to a reunion of our Protes- 
tant Christendom? 



APPENDIX 

I have met with three series of quotations from the 
fathers and doctors of the Church of England, in support 
of the Cyprianic hypothesis that no valid ordination 
exists except that by bishops possessing descent by suc- 
cessive consecrations from the Apostles, and that no valid 
sacraments exist except within a church governed by 
such bishops. The first is that prepared by Dr. John 
Henry Newman and published as the seventy-fourth of 
the Tracts for the Times. The second is given in A Letter 
to the Archdeacon of Totness. In Answer to an Address 
from the Clergy of that Archdeaconry on the Necessity of 
Episcopal Ordination, by Henry [Phillpotts], Lord Bishop 
of Exeter (London, 1852). The third is an article on 
The Voice of the Church of England on Episcopal Ordina- 
tion, by Rev. Arthur Lowndes, in Church Reunion Dis- 
cussed (New York, 1890). All three are so framed as to 
give the impression that the notable divines of the Church 
of England have been practically unanimous in the 
acceptance of the Cyprianic theory of the Church; but 
Mr. Lowndes deals more with documents (articles, 
canons, etc.) than with writers. 

On the other side are a pamphlet by an anonymous 
convert to the Church of Rome, entitled Apostolic Suc- 
cession Not a Doctrine of the Church of England (London, 
1870); and an article by Dr. Perowne, Dean of Peter- 
borough, which appeared in Lippincott's Magazine for 
January, 1890. 

292 



Appendix 293 

It is not here claimed that the writers now quoted 
are not Episcopalians, either by conviction of the excel- 
lence of that form of Church government, or by belief 
that has apostolic sanction, or both; although it will be 
seen that some of them do not hold to the latter. It 
is to show that many of the greatest and most honored 
of the doctors of the Reformed Church of England did 
not make for their Church that extravagant claim to 
exclusively valid orders and sacraments, which was de- 
veloped by the later Stuart divines of the Church of 
England, and revived by the Oxford writers some sixty 
years ago. I have placed in brackets the letters N, P 
and L, where the writer in question has been claimed by 
either Dr. Newman, or Bishop Phillpotts, or Mr. Lowndes, 
or all of them. 

1. Thomas Cranmer, Archbishop and Martyr (1489- 

1556). [L.] 

In the New Testament he that is appointed to be a 
bishop or priest, needeth no consecration by the Scripture, 
for election or appointing thereto is sufficient. 

The bishops and priests were at one time, and were no 
two things, but both one office, in the beginning of 
Christ's religion. 

The truth is that in the New Testament there is no 
mention made of any degrees or distinctions in orders, 
but only of deacons and ministers, and of priests or 
bishops. 

2. William Barlow, Bishop (ob. 1563). 

If the King's Grace, being Supreme Head of the Church 
of England, did choose, denominate and elect any lay 
man, being learned, to be a bishop, he so chosen should 
be as good a bishop as I am or the best in England. 



294 The Historic Episcopate 

3. Richard Goxe, Bishop (1500-1581). [L.] 
Although by Scripture, as St. Hierome saith, priests 

be one, and therefore not the one before the other, yet 
bishops as they be now, were after priests, and therefore 
made of priests. 

4. Thomas Becon, Presbyter and Doctor (1512-1567). 
He denied the distinction between bishop and presbyter, 

maintaining that there are but two orders, bishops or 
presbyters and deacons. He advocated the restoration 
of what he called the good old custom of electing minis- 
ters, when the names of some "good and godly men" were 
submitted to the chief inhabitants of a town or parish, 
who after fasting and prayer, and hearing a sermon on the 
duties of pastor and people, proceeded to election. Then 
other ministers laid their hands 'on the head of him that 
was chosen, admitting him to the ministry (Hunt, i, 46). 

5. Sir Francis Knollys, Treasurer to the Queen (1514- 

1596). 
Concerning the superiority of bishops, I must needs 
say that my Lord Archbishop and the rest take a danger- 
ous course against her Majesty's supreme government, 
for they do claim a superiority of government to be knit 
to their bishoprics jure divino directly. 

6. John Phillpotts, Archdeacon and Martyr (1516-1555). 
"He denied the succession of bishops to be an infallible 

mark by which the Church may be known. There may 
be a succession of bishops where there is no Church, as 
at Jerusalem and Antioch. . . . He allowed the 
Church of Geneva to be Catholic, and its doctrine 
apostolic, and the same was to be said of the Church of 
England as it stood in the days of King Edward." (Hunt, 
i, 35-36.) 



Appendix 295 

7. John Jewel, Bishop and Doctor (1522-1571). [L.] 

But M. Harding saith, the primates had authority 
over other inferior bishops. I grant they had so. How- 
beit, they had it by agreement and custom; but neither 
by Christ, nor by Peter or Paul, nor by any right of 
God's word. Saint Hierom saith: Noverint Episcopi se 
magis consuetudine quam dispositionis dominicce veritate 
presbyteris esse majores, et in commune debere ecclesiam 
regere. ("Let bishops understand that they are above 
priests rather of custom than of any truth or right of 
Christ's institution; and that they ought to rule the 
Church all together.") And again: Idem ergo est presbyter 
qui episcopus; et antequam diaboli instinctu studia in re- 
ligione fierent, et diceretur in populis, Ego sum Pauli, Ego 
Apollo, Ego Cephoe, communi presbyter orum consilio ec- 
clesioB gubernabantur. ("Therefore a priest and a bishop 
are both one thing; and, before that by the inflaming 
of the devil, parts were taken in religion, and these 
words were uttered among the people, 'I hold of Paul/ 
'I hold of Apollos,' 'I hold of Peter,' the churches were 
governed by the common advice of the priests.") St. 
Augustine saith: Secundum honorum vocabula, quce jam 
ecclesioe usus obtinuit, episcopatus presbyterio major est. 
("The office of a bishop is above the office of a priest 
(not by the authority of the scriptures, but) after the 
names of honor, which the custom of the Church now hath 
obtained.") 

"Succession," you say, "is the chief way for any 
Christian man to avoid Antichrist." I grant you, if 
you mean the succession of doctrine. Therefore St. 
Paul saith: "In the latter days shall some depart from 
the faith." He saith not, They shall depart from their 
place, but "from their faith." And St. John saith, "If 
any man come unto you, and bring not this doctrine, 



296 The Historic Episcopate 

salute him not." He saith not, If he keep not his place, 
but, "If he bring not this doctrine." It is the doctrine 
whereby Antichrist shall be known, and not his place: 
for, as I have said, "he shall sit in the place of Christ." 

Touching M. Calvin, it is great wrong untruly to re- 
port so reverend a father, and so worthy an ornament 
of the Church of God. If you had ever known the order 
of the church of Geneva, and had seen four thousand 
people or more receiving the holy mysteries together at 
one communion, ye could not without your great shame 
and want of modesty thus untruly have published to the 
world that by M. Calvin's doctrine the sacraments are 
superfluous. 

8. John Whitgift, Archbishop and Doctor (1530-1604). 

[L.] 
If it had pleased her Majesty, with the wisdom of the 
realm, to have used no bishops at all, we could not have 
complained justly of any defect in our Church. If it 
had pleased her Majesty to have assigned the imposition 
of hands to the deans of every cathedral church, or some 
other number of ministers, which in no sort were bishops 
but as they be pastors, there had been no wrong done to 
their persons that I can conceive. 

9. Richard Bancroft, Archbishop and Doctor (1544- 

1610). [N.] 
"A question in the meantime was moved by Andrews, 
Bishop of Ely, touching the consecration of the Scottish 
bishops, who, as he said, 'must first be ordained presby- 
ters, as having received no ordination from a bishop.' 
Dr. Bancroft, who was by, maintained that 'there there 
was no necessity, seeing where bishops could not be had, 
the ordination given by presbyters must be esteemed 
lawful; otherwise it might be doubted if there were any 



Appendix 297 

lawful vocation in most of the Reformed Churches/ 
This applauded by the other bishops, Ely acquiesced. " 
Abp. Spottiswoode (iii, 209). 

10. Thomas Holland, Presbyter and Doctor (06. 1612). 
When William Laud in 1604, maintained the thesis 

that there could be no true Church without diocesan 
bishops, Dr. Holland, the Regius Professor of Divinity, 
"openly reprehended him in the Schools for a seditious 
person, who would unchurch the Reformed Protestant 
Church beyond seas, and sow division between us and 
them, who were brethren by this popish position. " Dr. 
Heylin says that Laud "was shrewdly rattled by Dr. 
Holland, as one that did endeavour to cast a bone of 
discord betwixt the Church of England and the Reformed 
Churches beyond the seas." In 1608 Dr. Holland de- 
fended publicly the thesis "Quod Episcopus non sit Ordo 
distinctus Presbyteriatu, eoque superior jure divino" 
("That the bishop's office is not a distinct order from 
that of the presbyter, and therefore superior by divine 
right"). 

11. John Rainolds, Presbyter (1549-1607). 

Though Epiphanius says that iErius's assertion is full 
of folly, he does not disprove his reasons from Scripture; 
nay, his argument is so weak that even Bellarmin con- 
fesses they are not agreeable to the text. As for the 
general consent of the Church, which the doctor [Ban- 
croft] says condemned iErius's opinion for heresy, what 
proof does he bring for it? It appears, he says, in Epi- 
phanius; but I say it does not; and the contrary appears 
by St. Jerome, and sundry other who lived about the 
same time. I grant that St. Austin, in his book Of 
Heresies, ascribes this to ^Erius for one, — that he said 
there ought to be no difference between a priest and a 



298 The Historic Episcopate 

bishop, because this was to condemn the Church's order, 
and to make a schism therein. But it is quite a different 
thing to say that by the word of God there is a differ- 
ence between them, and to say that it is by the order and 
custom of the Church, which is all that St. Austin main- 
tained. When Harding the papist alleged these very 
witnesses to prove the opinion of bishops and priests 
being of the same order to be heresy, our learned Bishop 
Jewel cited to the contrary Chrysostom, Jerome, Am- 
brose and St. Austin himself, and concluded his answer 
with these words: "All these and othermore holy Fathers, 
together with the Apostle Paul, for thus saying, by 
Harding's advice, must be held for heretics. Michael 
Medina, a man of great account in the Council of Trent, 
adds to the forementioned testimonies, Theodorus, 
Primarius, Sedulius, Theophylact, with whom agree 
QEcumenius the Greek scholiast, Anselm Archbishop of 
Canterbury, Gregory and Gratian; and after them how 
many, it being once enrolled in the Canon Law, and there- 
upon taught by learned men." 

Besides, all that have labored in reforming the Church 
for five hundred years have taught that all pastors, be 
they entitled bishop or priests, have equal authority and 
power by God's word; as, at first, the Waldenses, next 
Marsilius Patavinus, then Wickliffe and his scholars, 
afterward Husse and the Hussites; and last of all Luther, 
Calvin, Brentius, Bullinger and Musculus. Among 
ourselves we have bishops, the Queen's professors of 
divinity in our universities, and other learned men con- 
senting herein, as Bradford, Lambert, Jewel, Pilkington, 
Humphreys, Fulke, etc. But what do I speak of par- 
ticular persons? It is the common judgment of the 
Reformed Churches of Helvetia, Savoy, France, Scot- 
land, Germany, Hungary, Poland, the Low Countries 



A ppendix 299 

and our own. I hope Dr. Bancroft will not say that all 
these have approved that for sound doctrine which was 
condemned by the general consent of the Church for 
heresy, in a most nourishing time; I hope he will ac- 
knowledge that he was overseen when he avouched the 
superiority which bishops have amongst us over the 
clergy to be God's own ordinance. 

12. Richard Hooker, Presbyter (1554-1600). [N. P. L.] 

"Some do infer that no ordination can stand but 
only such as is made by bishops, which have had their 
ordination likewise before them, till we come to the very 
Apostles of Christ themselves." "To this we answer 
that there may be sometimes very just and sufficient 
reason to allow ordination made without a bishop." 
"Men may be extraordinarily, yet allowably, two ways 
admitted unto spiritual functions in the Church. One 
is, when God doth of himself raise up any, whose labor 
he useth without requiring that men should authorize 
them; but then he doth ratify their calling by manifest 
signs and tokens himself from heaven. Another ex- 
traordinary kind of vocation is when the exigence of 
necessity doth constrain to leave the usual ways of the 
Church, which otherwise we would willingly keep; where 
the Church must needs have some ordained, and neither 
hath nor can have possibly a bishop to ordain; in case of 
such necessity, the ordinary institution of God hath given 
oftentimes, and may give, place." 

" Although I see that certain Reformed Churches, the 
Scottish especially and the French, have not that which 
best agreeth with the Scripture sacred, I mean the govern- 
ment that is by bishops, . . . this their defect I had 
rather lament in such case than exaggerate." 

"Lest bishops forget themselves, as if none on earth 



300 The Historic Episcopate 

had authority to touch their states, let them continually 
bear in mind, that it is rather by force of custom, whereby 
the Church having so long found it good to continue 
under the regimen of her virtuous bishops, doth still 
uphold and maintain them in that respect, than that 
any such true and heavenly Law can be showed, by the 
evidence whereof it may of a truth appear that the Lord 
himself hath appointed Presbyters to be forever under 
the regiment of bishops, in whatsoever sort they behave 
themselves; let this consideration be a bridle unto them, 
let it teach them not to disdain the advice of their pres- 
byters, but to use their authority with so much the 
greater humility and moderation, as a sword which the 
Church hath power to take from them." 

13. Lancelot Andrewes, Bishop and Doctor (1555-1626). 
[N.] 

Nec tamen si nostra divini juris sit, inde sequitur vel 
quod sine ea salus non sit, vel quod stare non possit 
ecclesia. Csecus sit, qui non videat stantes sine ea 
ecclesias; ferreus sit qui salutem eis neget. Nos non 
sumus ille ferrei; latum inter ista discrimen ponimus. 
Potest abesse aliquid quod divini juris sit (in exteriore 
quidem regimine), ut tamen substet salus. Non est hoc 
damnare rem, melius illi aliquid anteponere. 

Quaeris turn peccentne in jus divinum ecclesiae ves- 
trae? Non dixi. Id tantum dixi, abesse ab ecclesiis 
vestris aliquid quod de jure divino sit; culpa vestra non 
abesse, sed injuria temporum. 

14. Richard Field, Presbyter and Doctor (1561-1616). 
A bishop ordained per saltum, that never had the ordi- 
nation of a presbyter, can neither consecrate nor admin- 
ister the sacrament of the Lord's body; nor ordain a 
presbyter, himself being none; nor do any act peculiarly 



Appendix 301 

pertaining to presbyters. Whereby it is most evident 
that that wherein a bishop excelleth a presbyter is not a 
distinct power of order, but an eminence and dignity 
only, specially yielded to one above all the rest of the 
same rank, for order's sake, and to preserve the unity 
and peace of the Church. Hence it followeth that many 
things which in some cases are peculiarly reserved unto 
bishops, as Hierome noteth, potius ad honorem sacerdotii, 
quam ad legis necessitate™ (" rather for the honour of their 
ministry, than the necessity of any law"). [After men- 
tioning as instances of this confirmation and the recon- 
ciliation of penitents, Dr. Field proceeds:] And why 
not, by the same reason, ordain presbyters and deacons 
in cases of like necessity? . . . For if the power of 
order and authority to intermeddle in things pertaining 
to God's service be the same in all presbyters, and that 
they be limited in the execution of it only for order's 
sake, . . . there is no reason to be given, but that 
in cases of necessity, . . . but that presbyters, as 
they may do all other acts, whatsoever special challenge 
bishops in ordinary course make upon them, might do 
this also. Who then dare condemn all those worthy 
ministers of God that were ordained by presbyters, in 
sundry churches of the world, at such times as bishops, 
in those parts where they lived, opposed themselves 
against the truth of God, and persecuted such as pro- 
fessed it? Surely the best learned in the Church of Rome 
in former times durst not pronounce all ordinations of 
this nature to be void. For not only Armachanus 
[Richard Fitz Ralph of Armagh], a very learned and worthy 
bishop, but, as it appeareth by Alexander of Hales, many 
learned men in his time and before, were of opinion that 
in some cases and in some times presbyters may give 
orders, and that their ordinations are of force. [He 



302 The Historic Episcopate 

quotes Alexander of Hales as stating that "some say an 
ordained person, when called upon by a pope, can confer 
that order which he himself has."] 

15. Francis Mason, Presbyter and Archdeacon (1566- 
1621). [N.] 
He wrote an able defence of the Orders of the Church 
of England against the Romanists. In 1621 Archbishop 
Ussher published what he described as an Appendix to 
that work, The Validity of the Orders of the Ministers of 
the Reformed Churches beyond the Seas, maintained against 
the Romanists. He holds to the parity of bishops and 
presbyters in the matter of order, saying that "the 
bishop in his consecration receiveth a sacred office, an 
eminence, a jurisdiction, a dignity, a degree of ecclesi- 
astical preeminence." "He hath no higher degree in 
respect of intension or extension of the character; but 
he hath a higher degree, that is, a more excellent place in 
respect of authority and jurisdiction, in spiritual regi- 
ment. Wherefore, seeing a presbyter is equal to a 
bishop in the power of order, he hath equal intrinsic 
power to give orders." In some sense episcopacy is of 
divine right: "But if by jure divino you understand a 
law and commandment of God, binding all Christian 
churches, universally, perpetually, unchangeably, and 
with such absolute necessity that no other form of regi- 
ment may in any case be admitted; in this sense neither 
may we grant it, nor yet can you prove it to be jure 
divino" As for the Reformed churches of the continent, 
they are under no obligation to seek for Protestant 
bishops, as they have "the substance of the office," and 
"you must give us leave to believe God from heaven 
approving their ministry by pouring down a blessing 
upon their labors." 



A ppendix 303 

16. Richard Crakanthorpe, Presbyter (1567-1624). 
They [the Reformed Churches of the Continent] have 

not, I know, bishops distinct from presbyters, and su- 
perior to them, in the power of ordaining and excom- 
municating. But that inequality they teach not, as 
iErius did, to be repugnant to the word of God. They 
do not condemn it either in our Church, or in the Church 
universal, existing now for more than fifteen hundred 
years. They judge that the admission of either equality 
or inequality is free and lawful both by the word and the 
law of God. In short, whether to sanction equality or 
inequality they judge to be in the judgment and the 
power of each church. 

17. Francis Bacon, Viscount Verulam (1567-1626). 
Some indiscreet persons have been bold in open preach- 
ing to use dishonorable speech and censure of the churches 
abroad; and that so far as some of our men (as I have 
heard) ordained in foreign parts have been pronounced 
to be no lawful ministers. 

18. Joseph Hall, Bishop and Doctor (1574-1656). [NJ 
The sticking at the admission of our brethren, return- 
ing from the Reformed churches, was not in the case of 
ordination but of institution; they had been acknowledged 
ministers of Christ without any other hands laid upon 
them. 

I know those more than one, who by virtue only of 
that ordination which they have brought with them from 
other Reformed churches have enjoyed spiritual promo- 
tion and livings without any exception against the law- 
fulness of their calling. 

There is no difference in any essential matter be- 
twixt the Church of England and her sisters of the Refor- 
mation. We accord in every point of Christian doctrine 



304 The Historic Episcopate 

without the least variation; their public confessions and 
ours are sufficient convictions to the world of our full 
and absolute agreement. The only difference is in the 
form of outward administration; wherein we also are so 
far agreed that we profess this form not to be essential 
to the being of a church, though much importing the 
well or better being of it, according to our several appre- 
hensions thereof, and that we all do retain a reverence 
and loving opinion of each other in our own several 
ways, not seeing any reason why so poor a diversity 
should work any alienation of affection in us one towards 
another. 

19. John Davenant, Bishop and Doctor (1576-1641). 
But in a disturbed Church, where all bishops have 

fallen into heresy or idolatry, where they have refused to 
ordain orthodox ministers, if orthodox presbyters be com- 
pelled to ordain other presbyters, that the Church may 
not perish, I could not venture to pronounce ordinations 
of this kind vain and invalid. 

20. Thomas Jackson, Presbyter, Dean and Doctor (1579- 

1640). 
We Protestants of the Reformed churches, who are, 
if not the only true Christians upon earth, yet the truest 
Christians, and the most conspicuous members of the 
Holy Catholic Church, as militant here on earth, dare not 
vouchsafe to bestow the name of Catholic upon any 
Papist. 

21. James Ussher, Archbishop and Doctor (1581-1656). 
For the testifying of my communion with these 

churches, which I do love and honor as true members 
of the Church universal, I do profess that with like affec- 
tion I would receive the blessed sacrament at the hands 



Appendix 305 

of the Dutch ministers in Holland, as I would do at the 
hands of the French ministers. ' 

22. John Bramhall, Archbishop (1594-1663). [N.] 
Episcopal divines do not deny those churches to be 

true churches, wherein salvation may be had. We ad- 
vise them, as it is our duty, to be circumspect for them- 
selves, and not to put it to more question whether they 
have ordination or not, or desert the general practice 
of the Universal Church for nothing, when they may clear 
it if they please. Their case is not the same with those 
who labor under invincible necessity. What mine own 
sense is of it, I have declared many years since to the 
world in print; and in the same received thanks, and a 
public acknowledgment of my moderation, from a 
French divine. 

23. John Cosin, Bishop and Doctor (1594-1672). [P.] 
Though we may safely say and maintain it, that their 

ministers [those of the French churches] are not so duly 
and rightly ordained as they should be, by those prel- 
ates and bishops of the Church, who, since the Apostles' 
time, have had the ordinary power and authority to make 
and constitute a priest; yet that, by reason of this defect, 
there is a total nullity in their ordination, or that they be 
therefore no priests or ministers of the Church at all, 
because they are ordained by those only who are no 
more but only priests and ministers among them, for my 
part I would be loth to affirm and determine it against 
them. ... I conceive that the power of ordination 
was restrained to bishops rather by apostolical practice 
and the perpetual custom and canons of the Church, 
than by any absolute precept that either Christ or his 
Apostles gave about it. Nor can I yet meet with any 
convincing argument to set it upon a more high and 
20 



306 The Historic Episcopate 

divine institution. . . . If at any time a minister 
ordained in these French churches came to incorporate 
himself in ours, and to receive a public charge or cure 
of souls among us in the Church of England (as I have 
known some of them to have so done of late, and can 
instance in many others before my time), our bishops 
did not re-ordain him before they admitted him to his 
charge, as they must have done if his former ordination 
here in France had been void. Nor did our laws require 
more of him than to declare his public consent to the 
religion received among us, and to subscribe to the Articles 
established. And I love not to be herein more wise, 
or harder than our own Church is, which hath never 
publicly condemned and pronounced the ordinations of 
the other Reformed churches to be void, as it doth 
not those of the unreformed churches. 

There have been both learned and eminent men, as 
well in former ages as in this, and even among Roman 
Catholics, who have held and maintained it for good and 
passable divinity, that presbyters have the intrinsical 
power of ordination in actu primo; though for the avoid- 
ance of schism (as St. Hierom speaks) and preserving 
order and discipline in the Church, they have been 
restrained ever since the first times, and still are (but 
where they take a liberty to themselves that was never 
truly given them), from exercising their power in actu 
secundo. And therefore that however their act of or- 
daining other presbyters shall be void, according to the 
strictness of the Canon (in regard they were universally 
prohibited from executing that act, and breaking the 
order and discipline of the Church) yet that same act 
shall not be simply void in the nature of the things, in 
regard that the intrinsical power remaineth, when the 
exercise of it was suspended and taken from them. 



Appendix 307 

24. Herbert Thorndike, Presbyter (1598-1672). 

The resolution of Gulielmus Antissiodorensis among the 
school doctors, is well known and approved; that the 
order of bishops, in case of necessity, may be propagated 
by presbyters, supposing that they never received power 
to do such an act from them that had it. My reason 
makes me bold to resolve further, that, in the case which 
is put, Christian people may appoint themselves bishops, 
presbyters and deacons, provided it be with such limits 
of power, to be exercised under such laws, as are appointed 
before by our Lord and his Apostles; and that, upon these 
terms, they ought to be acknowledged by the rest of the 
Church, whensoever there is opportunity of communicat- 
ing with the same, . . . and that this acknowledg- 
ment of them would be effectual, instead of solemn 
ordination by imposition of hands of persons endowed 
with that power which is intended to be conveyed by 
the same. 

25. William Sancroft, Archbishop (1617-1693). 

From Some Things to be more fully insisted upon by the 
Bishops in their Addresses to the Clergy and People of their 
respective Dioceses: 

More especially that they have a very tender regard to 
our Brethren, the Protestant Dissenters; that upon occa- 
sion offered they visit them at their Houses, and receive 
them kindly at their own, and treat them fairly wherever 
they meet them, discoursing calmly and civilly with 
them. . . . 

And in the last place, that they warmly and most 
affectionately exhort them [the Dissenters] to join with 
us in daily fervent Prayer to the God of Peace, for an 
Universal Blessed Union of all Reformed Churches, 
both at Home and Abroad, against our common Enemies, 



308 The Historic Episcopate 

and that all they who do confess the Holy Name of our 
dear Lord, and do agree in the Truth of his Holy Word, 
may also meet in one Holy Communion, and live in per- 
fect Unity and Godly Love. 

26. Edward Stillingfleet, Bishop and Doctor (1635- 
1699). [N.] 
They have either a very low idea of the work of a gos- 
pel bishop, or very little consideration of the zeal, ac- 
tivity and diligence which was then used in preaching, 
reproving, exhorting, in season, out of season, that think 
that one single person was able to undergo it all. Dis- 
cipline was a great deal more strict then, preaching 
more diligent, men more apprehensive of the weight of 
their function, than for any to undertake such a care 
and charge of souls, that it was impossible for them ever 
to know, observe, or watch over so as to give an account 
of them. Besides, while we suppose this one person 
employed in the duties of his flock, what leisure or time 
could such an one have to preach to the Gentiles and 
unbelieving Jews in order to their conversion? The 
Apostles certainly did not aim at the setting up the 
honor of any one person, making the office of the Church 
a matter of state and dignity more than employment; 
but they chose men for their activity in preaching the 
gospel, and for their usefulness in laboring to add con- 
tinually to the Church. Men that were employed in 
the Church then did not consult for their ease or honor, 
and thought it not enough for them to sit still and bid 
others work. . . . Public prayers were not then 
looked on as the more principal end of Christian assem- 
blies than preaching, nor consequently that it was the 
more principal office of the stewards of the mysteries of 
God to read the public prayers of the Church, than to 



Appendix 309 

preach in season and out of season. . . . However 
it is granted, that in the Apostles' times preaching was 
the great work; and if so, how can we think one single 
person in a great city was sufficient, both to preach to and 
rule the church, and to preach abroad in order to the 
conversion of more from their Gentilism to Christianity? 
Especially if the church of every city was so large as some 
would make it, viz., to comprehend all the believers 
under the civil jurisdiction of the city, and so both city 
and country the charge of one single bishop. I think 
the vastness of the work, and the impossibility of the 
discharge of it by one single person, may be argument 
enough to make us interpret the places of Scripture 
which may be understood in that sense, as of more than 
one pastor in every city. ... In the most populous 
churches we have many remaining footsteps of such a 
college of presbyters there established in apostolic times. 
I doubt not but to make it evident, that before these 
late unhappy times, the main ground for settling epis- 
copal government in this nation, was not any pretence 
of divine right, but the conveniency of that form to the 
state and condition of this Church at the times of its 
reformation. 



INDEX 



Acts of Apoetlee, 20-28, 43-44, 
111, 140, L51, 161 

Aerius of Sebasteia, 101, 142- 
144, 297 

Africa. Roman, 124, 125, 127, 
169, 175-176 

Agape (Love-Feast), 71, 86-87 

Alexander, Patriarch of Alex- 
andria, 131, 158 

Alexandria, the church of, 116, 
118, 128, 130-132, 140, 158, 
163, 271 

Alien churches in England, 231, 
241-242, 243-246, 255 

Ambrose of Milan, 172, 173, 222 

"Ambrosiaster." See Isaac of 
Rome 

American dioceses, 36, 277, 280 

Ancyra, church of, 51, 67-68, 
154; Council of, 159, 178 

Andrews, Dr. Lancelot, 6, 76, 
215, 238-239, 240-241, 242, 
246, 251, 266, 296-297, 300 

Angels of the seven churches, 36, 
39-40, 68, 279-280 

Anselm of Canterbury, 187, 189, 
192, 198, 203, 204, 298 

Antioch, the church in, 22-23, 
27, 78-79, 161 

Apocalvpse, 33-34, 36, 39-40, 
97, 129, 170 

Apostles, the Twelve, 14, 20-21, 
24-25, 34-35. 57, 58, 97, 108, 
120, 127, 149. See Succes- 
sion 

Aquinas, Thomas, 47, 187, 188, 
189, 199-200 

Arianism, 155, 264n 

Aries, Synod of, 124 & n, 253 

Asia, Roman, 15, 19, 27-28, 39, 
62-63, 65-68, 85, 89-92, 108, 
109, 110, 111-114, 115, 116- 



118, 121-122, 142, 154, 168, 

170, 173-174 
Athanasius, 47, 86, 155 
Augustine of Hippo, 24, 139, 155, 

162, 167, 175, 176, 181, 185, 

196, 277, 295, 297-298 



Bacon, Francis, Lord, 303 

Baeda, 107 

Bancroft, Dr. Richard, 143, 206, 

211, 240-241, 243, 249-250, 

251, 296, 299 
Baptism, Heretical or Schismati- 

cal, 124, 125, 253 
Barlow, Bishop William, 218- 

219 & n, 293 
Barnabas, 22-23, 37, 170 
Barrow, Dr. Isaac, 134 
Baur, Friedrich Christian, 75- 

76n, 77, 78, 102, 104, 136, 148 
Baxter, Richard, 183, 252, 276- 

277 
Becon, Thomas, 205, 294 
Bellarmin Card. Robert, 133, 

136n, 141, 203 
Bernard of Clairvaux, 187, 188, 

189, 281 
Bernard of Constance, 198 
Beveridge, Bishop William, 134, 

256 
Bilson, Dr. Thomas, 211 
Bishop for America proposed, 

2-4,257; secured, 4 
Bishops, Primitive, 42, 44-46, 

49, 54, 57, 58-59, 69, 70-71, 

139-141; Monarchic, 81, 151, 

156-159, 272; Diocesan, 173- 

179, 207, 263; Urban, 100, 

165, 182, 269 
Bonaventura, Card. John, 188, 

199, 203 



3 11 



312 



Index 



Bonner, Bishop Edmund, 205, 
221 

Book of Common Prayer, Amer- 
ican, 4-5, 285; English, 213, 
216-217, 258-259 

Bramhall, Dr. John, 6, 215, 251, 
305 

Britain, Roman, 174, 176 

Bruce, Canon Robert, 73, 97, 184 

Bunsen, Freiherr Carl Christian 
Josias, 65, 66, 75, 77, 83, 266n 

Burkitt, Francis Crawford, 68- 
69 



Calderwood, David, 167 

Calvin, John, 202-203, 213, 217, 
224, 296, 298 

"Canons of the Holy Apostles," 
133, 134-135, 177, 182 

Carthage, the church in, 119, 
122-123 

Cartwright, Dr. Thomas, 226- 
227 

Casaubon, Isaac, 238 

Catholic Apostolic Church, 39, 
279-280 

"Catholic Church," 63, 88, 104 

Chandler, Dr. Thomas Bradley, 
3-4 

Channel Islands, 227-228, 242- 
243 

Charles I, 232, 243-249, 254n, 
286 

Charles II, 240, 252-253, 254n 

Chorepiscopate, 178, 279 

Chrysostom, John, 24, 77, 79, 
86, 196 

Church, Christ's presence in, 29, 
146-150, 273, 284. His teach- 
ing of, 17-18, 146, 272, 284 

Church, conception of the, 88- 
89, 95, 96, 110, 119-121, 125- 
126, 148-150, 170, 263-264, 
267-269, 272 

City, the unit of ancient society, 
129, 151, 167-173; its govern- 
ment not monarchical, 150- 
151 

Clarendon, Edward Hyde, Earl 
of, 2, 244, 245, 256 



Clement of Alexandria, 15, 24, 
28, 52, 88, 92, 101, 103, 104, 
116-118, 119 
Clement of Rome, 35, 42n, 44, 
50, 53, 54-62, 74, 85, 89, 104, 
106, 107, 109, 112, 114, 126, 
145, 148, 165, 170, 177, 271 
"Clementines" (Homilies, Rec- 
ognitions), 103, 106 
Coleridge, Samuel Taylor, 276 
Colet, Dr. John, 201-202 
Colluthus of Alexandria, 159 
Confessors' Right to absolve the 

Lapsed, 123-124 
"Constitutions of the Holy 
Apostles," 52, 63, 82, 92, 99- 
100, 104, 106, 111, 114, 127, 
133-136, 146, 157, 162, 165, 
216 
Conybeare, F. C, 63, 88n 
Corinth, the church in, 35, 54- 

59, 105, 109 
Cosin, Dr. John, 6, 205, 215, 

237, 238, 251, 266, 305-306 

Councils, 155, 180-181, 263; 

Ancyra, 51, 67-68, 154; 

Aries, 124n, 253 ; Nicea, 124, 

158, 177, 274; Seville,197; 

Trullus 133; Beneventum, 

198 ; Constance and Basel, 

189; Trent, 202; Vatican, 190 

Coverdale, Bishop Miles, 219 

Cox, Bishop Richard, 204, 224, 

294 
Crakanthorpe, Richard, 303 
Cranmer, Abp. Thomas, 204, 

211-217, 218, 293 
Cureton, Rev. William, 68, 76n, 

77-78, 86, 92, 93-94, 119 
Cyprian of Carthage, 34, 36, 44, 
88, 99, 101, 122-128, 133, 141, 
148, 156, 157, 158, 163, 165, 
175, 178-179, 182, 253-254, 
263, 267, 280, 291, 292 



Daille, Jean, 75n, 89, 136n 
Davenant, Dr. John, 304 
Deacons, Scriptural, 21-22, 29, 
30, 42, 71-72; Ecclesiastical, 
30, 137-138, 139-140, 170 



Index 



3*3 



Denton, Rev. William, 264n 
" Didaone." See Teaching 
Dionvsius of Alexandria, 88, 

101, 128-130, 156 
"Dionvsius the Areopagite," 

135n, 200, 201 
Diotrephes, 15, 1&-20, 40, 153 
Doane, Bp. William Crosswell, 

12 
Docetism, 20, 87, & n 
Dodwell, Dr. Henry, 253, 254, 

266 
Donatists, 124, 155, 175, 176, 

181, 264n 
Dort, Synod of, 236 
Duchesne, Mgr. Louis, 61-62, 

87n, 132, 272 



Ebioxites, 26, 36, 42, 101-105, 

136, 154 
Ecclesia, the Christian, 20-22, 

23-24, 27, 28-29, 30-32, 34, 

36, 161 
Edgeworth, Dr. Roger, 204 
Egypt, the church in, 129-130, 

168-169, 267n 
Elders, Jewish, 21, 41, 141; 

Christian, 21, 23, 24, 27-31, 

33, 41, 120, 152; Celestial, 34 
Elizabeth, Queen, 156, 217-218, 

231-232, 236-237, 241 
England, the church in, 190- 

191, 192-195, 203-205 
England, the Church of, 4, 7, 

183-184, 205, 211-232, 234- 

242, 243-250, 251-258, 262- 

268, 269-274, 275-277, 282- 

284 
English Canons of 1604, 213, 235 
English Dioceses, 191-192, 276- 

277 
Epiphanius, 51, 67, 73, 106, 142- 

143, 143n, 297 
Erasmus, 136n, 201 
Erastianism, 180-182, 217-218, 

220-222, 290 
Eusebius of Cesarea, 14, 37-38, 

51, 67, 76, 79, 80, 81, 85, 86, 

88, 94, 101-102, 103-104, 113, 

139 



Eutychius of Alexandria, 130, 

131-132, 158, 271 
Evangelists, 32, 37-39, 170 



Field, Dr. Richard, 201n, 205, 

300 
Firmillian of Cesarea, 88, 156 
Freeman, Dr. Edward Augustus, 

155, 193-195, 220 



Geneva, the church of, 217, 223, 

225, 226, 294 
Gibson, Mrs. Margaret, 69 
Gnosticism, 107, 110, 126, 154n 
Gore, Dr. Charles, 15, 20n, 60, 

75, 166-167, 215, 269-273, 

275-276 
Grabe, Dr. John Ernest, 134, 258 
Gratian, the Canonist, 141, 198, 

298 
Gregory of Nazianzen, Bishop 

of Sasima, 174-176 
Grindal, Abp. Edmund, 217, 

221, 222-223, 224, 229 
Grosstete, Bishop Robert, 188, 

189, 195 



Hall, Dr. Joseph, 76, 215, 237, 
238, 246, 251, 266, 303-304 

Hands, the Laying on of, 21, 22, 
128, 158, 160-164, 216 

Harnack, Dr. Adolph, 43-44, 
50n, 62, 75, 76 & n, 78, 81, 
88, 90, 116n, 143n, 154n 

Hatch, Dr. Edwin, 42-44, 59, 62, 
71, 74, 75, 150, 177, 182, 270 

Hebrews, the Epistle to, 32-33, 
140 

Hegesippus, 36, 54, 101-106, 121 

Henry VIII, 191-192, 204-205, 
211, 213, 218, 219, 221 

Heresy, Episcopacy no safe- 
guard against, 85, 153-155 

Hermas of Rome, 38, 47, 50, 
52-54, 73, 85, 104, 107, 112, 
145, 165, 170, 271 

Heron, Dr. James, 43n, 46n, 
52n 



3*4 



Index 



Heylin, Dr. Peter, 125, 143, 241, 

243n, 297 
Hippolytus of Rome, 51, 66-67, 

88 
Hobart, Bishop John Henry, 6, 

8 
Hodges, Rev. Jubal, 279-280 
Hodgkyn, Bishop John, 219-220 
Holland, Dr. Thomas, 243n, 297 
Hook, Dr. Walter Farquhar, 

183, 184, 211-212, 267 
Hooker, Richard, 6, 76, 205, 215, 

224, 230, 299 
Hort, Dr. Fenton John Anthony, 

20n, 22, 23-24, 27, 29-30, 33, 

40-41, 43n 
House of Bishops, American, 9, 

10, 285, 286-287 
Hunt, Rev. John, 256, 276, 294 
Huntingdon, Henry Hastings, 

Earl of, 222, 225-226 
Hutton, Abp. Matthew, 225, 226 



Ignatius of Antioch, 36, 51, 63, 
64r-65, 72-73, 74, 75-100, 104, 
111-112, 119, 126, 141, 145- 
146, 165, 182, 183, 240, 276, 
280 

Ireland, the church in, 174, 179, 
191 

Ireneus of Lyons, 15, 28, 36, 
37, 43n, 52, 54, 62, 73, 74, 
77, 85, 86, 88, 92, 101, 104, 
106, 107-116, 119, 121, 126, 
156, 166 

Isaac of Rome ("Ambrosias- 
ter"), 72, 101, 136-139, 158, 
271 

Isidore of Seville, 197-198 



Jablonsky, Bp. Daniel Ernst, 

258-259 
Jackson, Dr. Thomas, 304 
James, the Lord's Brother, and 

Apostle, 24r-27, 102-103, 146 
James VI and I, 229, 233-243, 

254n 
Jelf, Dr. Richard William, 269 
Jerome (Eusebius Hieronymus), 



24, 33, 39, 47, 67, 83, 101, 130- 
132, 139-142, 153-154, 159, 
162, 196-206, 211, 250, 270, 
295, 297, 298, 301, 306 

Jerusalem Bishopric (1841- 
1881), 266-267 

Jerusalem, the church in, 20, 
24-27, 36; Council of, 24, 26- 
27 

Jewel, Bishop John, 196, 205, 
223, 295-296, 298 

John, the Apostle, 15, 19-20, 
28, 90, 92, 97, 109, 113-114, 
115, 116-118, 121, 140. His 
Third Epistle, 15, 19-20, 145 

Justin Martyr, 50, 69-72, 86, 
104, 177 



Kitchin, Bishop Anthony, 218, 

220 221 
Knollys, Sir Francis, 217, 222, 

294 
Knox, John, 163-164, 216, 224, 

276 



Lambeth Conference, 288, 
289-290 

Lancelotti, Dr. Giovanni Paolo, 
141, 199, 203 

Lasco, Johannes a, 210n, 242 

Laud, Abp. William, 2, 34, 125, 
215, 231, 234, 235, 243, 250, 
266, 286, 297 

Laune, Guillaume de, 238 

Lefroy, Dr. William, 190n, 214, 
215-216, 272-273, 283, 284 

Leighton, Robert, 241, 290-291 

Liddon, Dr. Henry Parry, 59-60, 
282n 

Lightfoot, Dr. Joseph Barber, 
15, 19, 36, 51, 60, 63-66, 67, 
68, 74, 75, 78, 80-81, 83, 84, 
86, 87, 89-92, 97, 99, 111, 112, 
114, 116, 130, 132, 142, 153- 
154, 214 

Lipsius, Dr. Richard Adelbert, 
77, 81-83, 107-108 

Littledale, Dr. Richard Freder- 
ick, 106, 249n 



Index 



3*5 



Luther, Martin, 25, 156, 185, 
186, 211, 212, 298 

Lutheran bishops in Germany, 
JOS: in Scandinavia, 208-209 

Lutheran Orders, 8-9, 209, 266, 
298 



Marcion, 51, 67, 73, 104, 109, 

127. 154 
Mason, Rev. Francis, 205, 302 
Medina. Michael de, 202-203, 

206, 298 
Metropolitan Sees, 135, 177 
Moehler, Dr. Johann Adam, 127 
Montanists, 51, 67-68, 87, 98, 

119, 123, 146, 154, 181 
Moravian Episcopate, 258, 289- 

290 
Morin, Jean, 136n, 216 
Morton, Dr. Thomas, 239-240 
Moulin, Pierre du, 239; Peter 

du, 239 
Muratorian Fragment, 52, 90, 

104 



Newman, Dr. John Henry, 10, 

15-16, 203, 251, 262-266, 267, 

272, 284, 285, 292 
Noetus of Smyrna, 50, 66-67, 

154 
Nonjurors' Schism, 7, 273-274 
Novatian of Rome, 137-138, 

162-163 
Novatus of Carthage, 159 



Ordinal, the English, 213-216, 

229; The Roman, 158, 162, 

216 
Ordination, 128, 157-164, 305 
Origen, 38, 52, 55, 78-79, 86, 

118-119, 126, 139, 177 
Overall, Dr. John, 238 
Oxford School, 2, 262-266, 267, 

285, 293 



Palatinate, churches of the, 
247-248, 286 



Palmer, Bishop, 12-13 
Palmer, Sir William, 174, 267 
Papacy, the Roman, 127-128, 

133, 150, 151, 182, 185, 186, 

189-190, 272-273, 291 
Paphnutius, the Abbot, 159 & n 
Parker, Abp. Matthew, 218-220, 

221 222 
Paroikia ^Parish), 89, 170-171, 

172, 265 
Pastoral Office, 30, 32, 44-49, 

116, 182-184, 190-191, 193- 

194, 269, 275-276, 280-281 
Paul, the Apostle, 18, 19, 22-24, 

35, 43-44, 55, 66, 72, 79, 104, 

146, 170, 275n 
Pearson, Dr. John, 75n, 77, 134, 

240 
Peschitto, the Syriac, 50, 68-69 
Peter, the Apostle, 18-19, 26, 45- 

46, 79, 92n, 98, 126, 140, 170 
Peter the Lombard, 188, 199 
Philippi, the church in, 29-30, 

63-66, 83, 84, 140 
Phillpotts, Bishop Henry, 264, 

292 
Philpot, John, 294 
Poly carp of Smyrna, 15, 30, 

44, 50, 62-66, 79, 83, 84, 85- 

86, 88, 89, 90, 91, 93, 104, 

107, 109, 110-111, 112, 113, 

115, 153, 165, 170, 271 
Polycrates of Ephesus, 73, 90- 

91, 92 
Preach, License to, 186-187, 229 
"Precedent of 1610," 240-241, 

290 
Presbyterian Church of Amer- 
ica, 9-12; of Australia, 289 
Presbyters, Ordination by, 130- 

136, 256 
Presbytery of Lystra, 23-24 
" Prophesyings " in the Church 

of England, 218, 229 
Prophets in the early Church, 

22, 23, 52-54, 96, 98 
"Protestantism" a Nehushtan, 

267, 285-286 
Prussia, Friedrich I, King of, 

258-260; Friedrich Wilhelm 

IV, 266-267 



316 



Index 



Purchas, Rev. H. T., 20, 114- 

115, 145 
Puritans, 204, 217, 219-220, 

222, 228-229, 230, 244, 248, 

252-253, 276 
Pusey, Dr. Edward Bouverie, 

266n, 267, 269 



Rainolds, Dr. John, 205 

Ramsay, Sir William Mitchell, 
50, 90, 151 

Redman, Dr. John, 204 

Reformed Churches on the Con- 
tinent, 214, 216, 223-224, 
225, 231-232, 235-240, 243n, 
246-248, 250, 255, 297, 298- 
299, 302, 303, 303-304, 304, 
304-305, 3057306, 307 

Reformed Episcopal Church, 
274—275 

Rhodon, 51, 67-68, 86 

Ritschl, Dr. Albrecht, 77, 103, 
104, 148, 154n 

Roman Empire, 19, 150-152, 
1797182. Emperors: Do- 
mitian, 58, 102; Trajan, 15, 
36, 76, 79, 80-81, 82, 88; 
Hadrian, 81; Antoninus Pius, 
81; Decius, 148; Diocletian, 
179 

"Roman Peace," 168, 180 

Romanticism, 261, 267-268 

Rome, the church in, 52-55, 
56, 58, 60, 62, 67, 70-74, 85, 
92-93, 105-107, 108-109, 112, 
121, 154, 171-172; Linus, 
Cletus, Anacletus, 106, 107, 
109, 112; Anicetus, 73, 105, 
110; Soter, 72; Victor, 73, 91, 
110-111; Callistus, 171; Fa- 
bianus, 137, 172; Cornelius, 
125, 128 & n, 158, 163; 
Dionysius, 172; Marcellus, 
172; Liberius, 155; Siricius, 
172; Leo, 160; Gregory VII, 
179, 189, 192; Urban II, 198, 
203 

Rothe, Dr. Richard, 14-15, 60, 
104, 142, 178n 

Ruskin, John, 48-49, 100, 276 



Sacerdotalism, 87, 99-100, 122, 

128, 143, 148-149, 157, 284 
Salmon, Dr. George, 15, 19, 35, 

51, 52, 54, 67, 72-73, 75, 79, 

90, 105, 112, 113, 143n, 145, 

150 
Sancroft, Dr. William, 255, 290, 

307 
Sanday, Dr. William, 13, 72, 

75, 165-166 
Sandys, Abp. Edmund, 221, 225 
Saravia, Hadrian, 224 
Schism and Episcopacy, 139- 

140, 151-152, 155-156, 273- 

275 
Scory, Bishop John, 219 
Scotland, Reformed Church of, 

49, 183-184, 209-210, 214- 

215, 223, 224, 234-235, 240- 

241, 246, 268, 276, 290-291, 

299. Its Books of Discipline, 

163-164, 209-210 
Scott, Sir Walter, 184, 262 
Scottish Episcopal Church, 7, 

274 
Seabury, Dr. Samuel, 6-8, 100, 

274 
Sharp, Abp. John, 259 
Sheldon, Abp. Gilbert, 241, 253, 

256, 257 
Smith, Canon Travers, 76n, 84- 

85, 89, 98, 99 
Smyrna, the church in, 63, 

66-67, 96, 109, 110, 121, 151 
Spottiswoode, Abp. John, 240- 

241, 296, 297 
Stanley, Dr. Arthur Penrhyn, 

15, 40, 47-48, 53, 106 
Stanton, Dr. Vincent Henry, 

272 
Stillingfleet, Dr. Edward, 159, 

160, 197, 205, 308 
Story, Dr. Herbert, 210 
Strabo, Walafried, 173, 188-189 
Succession, Apostolic, 34-35, 

98-99, 108, 109, 110, 114, 120- 

121, 121-122, 126-127, 155, 

215-216, 263, 267-275, 282, 

291 
Sumner, Abp. John Bird, 264- 

265 



Index 



317 



Superintendents, Scottish, 209- 

210, 270 
Synagogue, the Jewish, 21, 31 



Taylor, Dr. Jeremy, 215, 250- 

251, 280-281 
"Teaching of the Twelve Apos- 
tles" ("Didache"), 38, 39, 50, 

51-52, 90, 136, 165 
Tertullian, 15, 28, 36, 38, 39, 

52, 80, 88, 101, 104, 106, 126, 

177 
Thompson, Dr. Hugh Miller, 36 
Thonissen, Konrad, 60-61 
Thorndike, Dr. Herbert, 307 
"Threefold Ministry," 58, 65, 

83, 94, 95, 96, 97-98, 99, 111, 

134-135, 184, 279 
Tillotson, Abp. John, 255 
Timothy, 23-24, 30-32, 36-37, 

138 
Titus, 30, 32, 36-37, 170 
Travers, Dr. Walter, 230-231 



"Uncovenanted Mercies," 251, 

263-264 & n, 282 
Uniformity, English Acts of 

(1571, 1662), 223, 230, 237, 

252, 256, 306 



Ussher, Dr. James, 76-77, 231, 
302, 304-305 

Vaughan, Bishop Richard, 241- 

242 
Venables, Canon Edmund, 143- 

144 
Venantius, Bishop of Timisa, 149 
Villages and village churches, 

68, 168, 177-178 
Vossius, Gerard John and Isaac, 

77, 89, 92, 240, 249, 252 

Warburton, Bishop William, 

257 
Whiston, Rev. William, 133n, 

134 
White, Dr. William, 5-6, 8, 285 
Whitgift, Abp. John, 76, 218, 

225, 226-227, 229, 230, 249- 

250, 296 
Whittingham, Dr. William, 217, 

224-226, 230 
Whittingham, Bishop William 

Rollinson, 278-279 
Wied, Hermann von, Abp. of 

Cologne, 208, 216-217 
Wordsworth, Bishop Charles, 

206 

Zahn, Dr. Theodor, 78, 83-84, 
86,87 



»:••-•' 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: Sept. 2005 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 
111 Thomson Park Owe 
Cranberry Township. PA 16066 
(724)779-2111 



One copy del. to Cat. Div. 



28 m. 



